John RE...Glad to see you finally agree that "it's all about the oil".
Drop the word "all" and replace it with "partly", and we are in agreement.
First, I don't think they will be successful.
A lottle late for that. The war part is over, has been for wuite some time now. It is winning the peace that has been the problem. However, with Iraq's new constitution approved Mon., even that looks very winnable now.
I don't think that a country that was founded on the high moral ground of Democracy should be taking over other countries/regions in a grab for their natural resources.
Actually, that is probably the high ground of your argument. And it would have some validity, if that was actually what we were doing. First off, We haven't grabbed one barrel without paying for it. Secondly, you would rail to no end if Halburton, created an oil shoratge and gouged us, but you want to excuse dictators, who would do likewise. Thirdly, the oil was an indirect reason, as Saddam never had control over enough oil, to make much of a difference. However, Saddam did wage war on countries who did, such as Kuwait, SA, and Iran. There is little doubt, that if we hadn't intervened in 91, Saddam would have controlled, SA and Kuwait, half of OPEC's production, and therefore controlled us. You cannot let your enemies, control your lifeline, no matter how altruisic you may want to be. Fourthly, Saddam just had to agree with the peace resolution conditions, dictated by the UN after the Gulf war, and he wouldn't do it. It is his fault, not ours. He started the 91 war, and when he refused to comply, with the terms of surrender, and we had a right to finish it. 12 yrs, of trying to get him to comply was enough. Fifthly, whether Saddam had WMD or nbot, he still was a threat, if we ended sanctions, to resort to his old ways. Sixthly, the sanctions had to end for several reasons: other countries were bribed by Saddam to end the sanctions, sanctions were used as a tool to inflame arab hatred toward the US., thirdly, according to the UN, and Ramsey, hundreds of thousands had died, because of those sanctions. In the end, it came down to, could we trust Saddam, after the sanctions ended, not to bring his WMD out of hiding, or rebuild his capacity in WMD or nuclear weapons; could we trust Saddam not to start another massacure afer we withdrew our no fly zones, and would Saddam use his oil wealth to feed his people, instead of buying more palaces, and more weapons. The answer was an obvious no, so the rest is history.
Third, a whole lot of folks have died and will die, on both sides.
And they wouldn't have,if we did nothing??? There is no way, you can claim more will die, this way, than if we did nothing. There is no way 30,000 people in total died, in Iraq, and that was the annual amount of people Ramsey, and the UN claimed the sanctions caused/yr.. If we wouldn't have acted, 10,000 to 20,000 more would have died in Iraq last yr alone, and Saddam would still be in power, killing another 30,000/yr. each yr after. If you consider Saddam and his sons, could have ruled another 30 yrs, our actions saved a million people.
As far as "until we have alternatives", we are not heading in that direction, in fact, the opposite. And our politicians (R/D) are not providing leadership in that direction. It's all about oil, not energy.
Which is absolutely true. However, neither side will get there, as long as energy is just a political football, to be kicked in the face of whoever had the nerve to do something about it. As long as we demonize the energy companies, they won't do what is best, just what is convenient. We have only ourselves to blame. |
