The plan was to make Middle East safe for Israel by all accounts. With our blood, money and resources. Pretty clever.
Close. The plan was to make the Middle East safer for you and me by establishing a friendly democracy in the middle of terrorist alley. Of course our friend Israel benefits greatly if all goes well. With a U.S. foothold in the middle of the action we would have a much greater ability to affect the spread of terrorism in the region, all to our national interest.
FK: "If we went to war for oil, and we now control the oil fields, why aren't we just cleaning up?"
Because oil prices are determined by speculation. In some parts of this world, that's a dirty word. ...
I know about the futures market, etc. And I know that crude oil is fungible. But so does Bush!!! :) Therefore, doesn't your correct answer shoot the "war for oil" theory right out of the water? :) It makes absolutely zero sense to say that Bush went to war for oil, when it is clear that there is no gain to be had there, unless we were just going to steal it or something. Looking at today's gas prices, it looks like Bush hasn't stolen very much yet.
The companies are actually making bigger profits than before the war and we are paying more than twice for gas, all thanks to GW (who's bank account is doing much better along with Cheney's and Rice's because of oil prices).
So, your economic analysis is that when it comes to higher gas prices: "IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!". While that is a popular view among the Paul Krugman's of the world, it doesn't match the facts. Actually, the reason for higher gas prices is not mostly due to a shortage in production, it is due to a shortage in refining capacity. The companies are not making huge profits at the pump, in fact the franchise gas station owners are getting killed with the high prices. No, the companies are making a mint at the refining level.
Why is that? Enter Al Gore-types and other militant environmentalists. 30 years ago, the United States had good capacity to refine crude oil to satisfy the needs of the American people. Do you know how many new refineries have been built in this country in the last 30 years? ZERO! Thanks to all liberals. And since those same liberals filibuster attempts to drill for new oil, to build new refineries, and to build more nuclear power plants, the demand has gone through the roof, while our refining capacity (and domestic supply) is stunted. I'm surprised it took this long to catch up to us.
BTW, did you know why Iran is actually a net IMPORTER of fuel? It's because they don't have enough refineries either. They are actually rationing gas in Iran. Can you imagine that? ...... So, thanks to the leftists, the oil companies have mini-monopolies on the refining level and can charge what they want. They are semi-clean because the liberals won't let them build new plants or drill for new oil, or go get the shale oil that we also have an abundance of. No one cried for the oil companies when they were losing their shirts, so I don't blame them for making a buck now while the getting is good.
The evidence was there and it did not look good for the Bush administration. ... Those who followed more than prefab news reports knew that there was no evidence of WMDs or any imminent threat and that this whole thing was being cooked as an excuse to go to war.
As I said earlier, what is this evidence? I follow what the anti-war Dems are saying today and I don't hear anything credible. Since they only get out of bed in the morning to politically stab Bush in the chest, I would think that if they had such evidence that their buddies in the MSM would headline it for weeks. But I haven't seen anything.
I was reading as much as I could find, and I never believed there were any such weapons to be found.
OK, then what do you think Saddam did with the WMD program that he actually implemented before? Did he secretly dismantle it while lying to the world that it not only existed, but was growing?
FK: "... the ones who had the most to gain from an invasion were the Iraqi people."
That is really "obvious." They used to have normal schools, and electricity and water, and now they don't know if they will come home from going to the market...try telling them that.
I see. Normal schools? Uh-huh. Well, I suppose the first I would tell would be those lying in mass graves, and the victims of the state sponsored rape rooms, and Saddam's torture chambers, and the political prisoners, and all their families, etc. We've certainly made some serious mistakes in Iraq, but if we don't quit, and they don't quit, the lives of the Iraqis and countless future generations will be immeasurably better.
What is this truth that you keep talking about?
There was enough doubt in the cooked 'evidence' not to justify the 'imminent danger' and pre-emptive strike option. The idea was to press on with inspections, and pressure on the regime to cooperate, while being carefully monitored for nay signs of hostile action.
If Haliburton was smart they would make more of them
You get my point, then. :)
The underlying point was that Saddam DID have WMDs
Yes, and so does just about every country on earth. There is a difference between using them locally and inter continentally. Besides, North Korea did 't even hide that it was making or or that it actually had at least one missile capable of reaching the US and we did nothing. How selective can you get?
Saddam's army has proven completely inept in the past (taking over a posta-stamp sized country like Kuwait is not a great feat), especially after ten years of severe sanctions. So, claiming "imminent danger" and 48-hour nuclear strike capability was a deliberate dysinformation with one goal in mind: to create a panic situation and get a green light for a war.
Information such as that launched by the Brits is not something you would release to the public. You would react first and explain later, if the evidence was there, that is.
ANYONE making the assumptions and conclusions you say Bush should have made would NEVER have the courage to protect our nation when it is attacked again
Hello? Are you there? We were attacked by Osama who was in Afghanistan. Our miserable failure to catch him there was no excuse to go after Iraq with no connection whatsoever. Except the neocons saw this as a perfect opportunity to settle some old scores.
Attacking Iraq did not reduce the possibility of terrorist infiltration on our shores, or using domestic "sleeper cells" for that purpose. Saddam held exactly zero chance of attacking us successfully using conventional methods. Preparation for an attack would be detected before it got off the ground. Iraq was under constant satellite surveilence and under no fly restrictions.
Our interballistic missiles would have shot any of his interballistic missiles (which he didn't have) out of the sky with ease. The Israeli air force could have blown the whole operation into smithereens as it has done once before. If we had such incontrovertible evidence that he was capable and was actually committing an imminent threat, we could have resorted to air strikes; not an invasion. Clearly, the WMDs were an excuse.
Saddam invaded Kuwait first
Kuwait was part of Iraq until the British created it (together with the fake "royal" family) for their oil interest. A little history helps understand how conflicts simmer, and why they boil over when no one expects it.
The plan was to make the Middle East safer for you and me by establishing a friendly democracy in the middle of terrorist alley
You have no clue of what you are taking about. Your knowledge of Middle East history is zero, imo. Everything you spout is replaying recorded Fox News propaganda. Otherwise you couldn't be saying what you are saying. There was no terrorism or instability in the Middle East. The only terrorism that existed after 1945 was Israeli terror tactics against the British there.
Unilateral creation of Israel, even if morally right, was in violation of the UN resolution, involved ethnic cleansing and a cause of instability in the region that has lasted for the last 60-plus years. Israel has been our friend and ally but it has not been a "stabilizing" factor.
It makes absolutely zero sense to say that Bush went to war for oil, when it is clear that there is no gain to be had there, unless we were just going to steal it or something. Looking at today's gas prices, it looks like Bush hasn't stolen very much yet
The oil was certainly a big factor, but not a politically desirable one for public consumption. First, the issue of oils supply to Israel, which has no oil of its own, is a concern. All the oil in the region comes from Israel's enemies. The pipes leading to the Mediterranean go over territories that are hostile to Israel. The only connection to oil is through Turkey, the only Muslim country which has a defense pact with Israel, a deal worked out at great benefits for Turkey, which has received our complete protection and immunity in return.
Saudi Arabia is no friend of ours, as you say, and if its regime became less friendly or fell to the Wahabbi opponents, our oil supplies would be in serious danger as our dependence on imported oil has only steadily risen since the last Arab-Israeli war in the 1970's.
Most of the oil in that region is concentrated in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran and the Caspean Sea. the oil pumps go into the Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean (via Syria), and Turkey. Controlling the region, or having America-friendly regimes installed there would assure us not only of the world's largest oil reserves, but direct control over them.
This would also assure oils supply to Israel as an added benefit. It would also free us from total dependence on the Saudi oil. That's why we created friendly relations (and installed friendly regimes) with Kazakhstan, and all the countries from the Caspean Sea all the way to Turkey. Our aim is to overturn the regimes of Iraq, Syria and Iran for that reason. That would be in our national interest. the big question is how?
Obviously we can't buy them. Because they are so adamant about Israel's demise, which is not an option under any circumstances, there is no possibility of getting them to agree, as was possible with non-oil producing countries like Jordan and Egypt (no democracies there, by the way; the Egyptian regime has been in power for 40-plus years...and Jordan is run by the king and a rubber-stamp "parliament").
So, the only possible way is to force a change, and for that you need casus belli (the cause of war), and in the aftermath of 9/11 the "mindset" was ripe for that, but the neocons actually presented the plan to the Clinton administration in the mid 1990's, so the intention was there all along; what was missing was some kind of "urgent evidence" to make the case.
Saddam's torture chambers, and the political prisoners, and all their families, etc. We've certainly made some serious mistakes in Iraq, but if we don't quit, and they don't quit, the lives of the Iraqis and countless future generations will be immeasurably better
No doubt, but it didn't bother us as a matter of principle when he engaged Iran. Then he was just one of "our thugs." he was good for us. And, by the way, by now more Iraqis have died since the invasion then under his horrible regime. Geopolitically, he was a minor threat to us, but he was a stability factor for the region. And, that should be our concern. Now we have a destablizied region, and no potential solution. I seriously doubt the Iraqis will be better off any time soon.
Our myopia when it comes to international conflicts is stunning. We have all the resources and very little understanding of other cultures and root causes for their present state. High tech, low IQ. We react, and apply our standards on them. We rely on disgruntled emigre groups and treat them as if they had no axe to grind and a motive to provide us with misleading information for their own purpose. We engage in nation-building experiments when thousand-year old cultures are firmly entrenched and will not change. My take on the reasons for such misses is that we have become politically correct instead of practical. political correctness promotes and hires as well as fires. It doesn't look for talent and knowledge, but for those who will be politically correct. yes men are not necessarily your best workers.
It's funny how the Taliban mistreatment of women was not mentioned on the news in any significant ways until it became necessary to get people all worked up to attack Afghanistan. Likewise, their disproportionate poppy seed production was never mentioned until then. After all we helped put Taliban in power there. Zbig Bzesinski even called them the "soldiers of God" and CIA was supplying them with weapons and intel to fight the Soviets. Their poppy production and their abuse of women didn't bother us at all.
What does that say about our principles? It says we don't have any. It says we have selective outrage when it suits us. Saudi Arabia treats its women just as badly, and we see nothing about in on public TV. Ever wonder why.