Replies

Anyone who thinks we're attacking Iraq to stop their getting WMD's is nuts and naive at best. A lot of other countries have WMD's, no thanks to Russia and China, and we're not attacking them anytime soon. Saddam is not a religious whacko but a shrewd opportunist and I doubt he would ever use a WMD except in self-defense, since he knows he would be glass in 15 mins courtesy of the Israeli Air Force.

We're going because:

1. It has the second largest proven reserves of oil (some say the most).

2. Now that we have AFghanistan controlled, which will allow for developing the vast Central Asian oil, Iraq will form a strategic second base in the region.

3. Invading Iraq and occupying it will help both prop up the Saudi Arabian regime and send a message to them that they're next. It will discourage other oil producing states from trying to do another OPEC, etc.

4. We have a world economic system built upon mountains of debt that is buckling and it needs a good dose of American military might to serve notice that America will support it no matter who needs to die. The Empire may not have any clothes but if anyone who points it out is immediately squished, it hardly matters. Euro, what Euro?

5. It finishes George W. Bush's election strategy. He always believed that his father failed due to going back on his word about not raising taxes and not finishing Saddam off. It gives Bush legacy points and also gives the country something to sink its teeth into in response to 9/11, as long as people dont forget that it was Osama and not Saddam who hit us on 9/11. My opinion is most people dont care one way or another.

6. It takes care of Israel's immediate enemies and gives them cover to do whatever they want to do.

What this means for America in the future is unknown. But judging upon previous American escapades in balance of power politics, some other baddies will inevitably pop up, and more 9/11's will no doubt be on the way. This is the price of Empire.

My own opinion is mixed, I see pros and cons of invading or not. But it would be nice to have more people talk about the concerns of the article and the issues of Empire (and NWO) instead of just becoming a rah rah forum for any military use anywhere at any time for any goal as long as my commander in chief says "GO!"

And keep the Buchanan bashing to a minimum. Like his view or not, the guy is sharp and has a lot to say, and is a heck of a lot brighter than most on this forum who sould like idiot cheerleaders who are goose-stepping to the drums of war.

Well my opinion is that what you say about empire may be true (or not) but we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't think there are any good alternatives. As far as oil goes, without it, our country's economy is sunk. Therefore, we fight for oil as it is in our VITAL national interests to do so. I do concede that it is also VITAL for us to drill Anwar and anywhere else here at home where we can find oil.

I am proud to say that because of 9/11 I want blood, and I want facist Islamics to bleed. Whether they be Pali terrorists, Saudi, Iraqi, Afghani, machts nichts. If this makes me a member of the War Party than give me my membership card!

Saddam must die. If he doesn't, and we do nothing more to punish fascist Islamics, then we will surely die, slowly in small atacks, or in great numbers like 9/11.

I'm retired military. I'm looking to go back in to finish the job I was part of 11 years ago. No fear (except financial debt for my family).

"This is the price of Empire" This Islamic lunacy has been placed before you... the choice is yours alone.....

Let the Imperials Roll...

Anyone who thinks we're attacking Iraq to stop their getting WMD's is nuts and naive at best. A lot of other countries have WMD's, no thanks to Russia and China, and we're not attacking them anytime soon.
You do realise that nukesw are great at deterring the US from attacking.

Saddam is not a religious whacko but a shrewd opportunist and I doubt he would ever use a WMD except in self-defense, since he knows he would be glass in 15 mins courtesy of the Israeli Air Force.
He has already used Chemical Weapons.

1. It has the second largest proven reserves of oil (some say the most).
I believe that Russia has more. What Iraq has is readily availalbe sweet crude which is easy to get at.

2. Now that we have AFghanistan controlled, which will allow for developing the vast Central Asian oil, Iraq will form a strategic second base in the
The oil is in the Caspian Sea. The route through Turkey is both easier and more logical.

3. Invading Iraq and occupying it will help both prop up the Saudi Arabian regime and send a message to them that they're next. It will discourage other oil producing states from trying to do another OPEC, etc.
Good point.
It will also allow us to help overthrow Iran and possibly Syria.

4. We have a world economic system built upon mountains of debt that is buckling and it needs a good dose of American military might to serve notice that America will support it no matter who needs to die. The Empire may not have any clothes but if anyone who points it out is immediately squished, it hardly matters. Euro, what Euro?
Most European countries have worse debt problems than us.

5. It finishes George W. Bush's election strategy. He always believed that his father failed due to going back on his word about not raising taxes and not finishing Saddam off. It gives Bush legacy points and also gives the country something to sink its teeth into in response to 9/11, as long as people dont forget that it was Osama and not Saddam who hit us on 9/11. My opinion is most people dont care one way or another.
And what of the next two years!

6. It takes care of Israel's immediate enemies and gives them cover to do whatever they want to do.
Not likely. Israel was a looser (at least short term) in teh first Gulf War. It's ability to respond to attacks were constrained and the US rubber stamped Syrian occupation of Lebanon, while pressuring Israel to sell out the Christian south. All of this helped create terrorism. Bush Sr. then used his clout to topple the Shamir government, helping to ensure that the Suicide process would begin.
What will be the cost to Israel of US intervention in Iraq this time? Who knows. I can guarantee that Israel will, at the very least, be utterly handcuffed in dealing with internal and external attacks.

What this means for America in the future is unknown. But judging upon previous American escapades in balance of power politics, some other baddies will inevitably pop up, and more 9/11's will no doubt be on the way. This is the price of Empire.
And the price of surrender is?

My own opinion is mixed, I see pros and cons of invading or not. But it would be nice to have more people talk about the concerns of the article and the issues of Empire (and NWO) instead of just becoming a rah rah forum for any military use anywhere at any time for any goal as long as my commander in chief says "GO!"

REality check.
In case you haven't noticed, the Globalist Elites (Baker, Eagleberger, Powell) and the UN oppose US action against Iraq. America blowing off the UN will undermione the NWO.

And keep the Buchanan bashing to a minimum. Like his view or not, the guy is sharp and has a lot to say, and is a heck of a lot brighter than most on this forum who sould like idiot cheerleaders who are goose-stepping to the drums of war.
You would thik he is sharp.
I find him to sound like the average leftist idiot college student right now.

"Now that we have AFghanistan controlled, which will allow for developing the vast Central Asian oil, Iraq will form a strategic second base in the region. "

The McNamara-type non-uniformed hawks are on Mission Creep. They either want to hasten Argameddon or capture the oil. They don't have America's long term interests at heart like Buchanan does.

"Saddam is not a religious whacko but a shrewd opportunist and I doubt he would ever use a WMD except in self-defense, since he knows he would be glass in 15 mins courtesy of the Israeli Air Force..

What factual basis do you have to doubt that Saddam would ever use WMD? Based on his historical behavior and thirst for revenge, I think there's a good chance he would use nukes against America and Britain. A nuclear attack on one of our cities would be catastrophic. It would be 100 times worse than the 9/11/01 attack. That scenario is unacceptable to the Bush administration, therefore the option of leaving Saddam in power is also unacceptable. That's why we're going to attack, not for oil or empire. Nuclear weapons are not that difficult to build and they're easy to smuggle into a port city. Wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late.

My own opinion is mixed, I see pros and cons of invading or not. But it would be nice to have more people talk about the concerns of the article and the issues of Empire (and NWO) instead of just becoming a rah rah forum for any military use anywhere at any time for any goal as long as my commander in chief says "GO!"
And keep the Buchanan bashing to a minimum. Like his view or not, the guy is sharp and has a lot to say, and is a heck of a lot brighter than most on this forum who sould like idiot cheerleaders who are goose-stepping to the drums of war.

I've often wondered why so many people here think that being pro-war is being patriotic. If one's goal is to do what is in the best interests of the American people, that may very well require one to take anti-war positions from time to time. They other thing that amazes me is how many people think loyalty to America means loyalty to the current administration. Loyalty to America is a far wider grander thing than slavish devotion to the current occupant of the White House, irrespective of his IQ.