Wmd In Iraq

[j2k4]

Biggles-

I won't quote your post due to it's length; I will try to address it as well as I can.

It seems the concensus alights rather heavily on oil as our clumsily and ineffectually cloaked raison d'etre in the mid-east.

For the sake of a paragraph or so worth of blather, let's say you are right.

If we wanted/needed the oil that badly, why wouldn't we just barge in and take it, reputation and diplomacy be damned?

We could hardly do worse than we are in the court of world opinion. Why would we have expended such effort or wasted such time in the U.N.?

Really, now-we don't have to care, so why do we waste time, money, alliances and lives in the effort?

If we went about our "appropriations" baldly and without any pretense whatsoever, could we have possibly damaged our international reputation any further?

I will grant that Saudi Arabia makes, at best, an extremely unctuous (I almost balked at using that word, but, hey, it was next in the rotation ) ally in the mid-east, and I am glad to see us stepping in any other direction, but, while it lasted, it offered stability in an otherwise unstable region, and yes, it's true, the U.S. can't function without oil. We're top dog, and we like it that way; we feel our presence in the region lends stability overall, and also allows us to be supportive of Israel. We know the rest of the Arab world would prefer we leave the area (and Israel) so they can get on with fulfilling their religious mandate of wiping out the Jews, but.....oh, nevermind-we're only there for the oil, and Israel is only an excuse for us to stay.


As for WMD, a quick google will reveal that, as I've said, everybody in the whole, wide world believed Saddam had a really nice selection of such toys.
The U.N. Security Council sure believed it, and that includes Schroeder, Chirac, Putin, and a few others.

Although this fact is undeniably true, and reinforced by endless anecdotal evidence provided by Iraqi refugees and international intelligence organizations, it is denounced on it's face by the same entities who passed 17 U.N. resolutions and sent (or tried to send) untold numbers of inspectors, at tremendous cost, to Iraq to enforce these resolutions they now disavow a need for?

So-the U.S. gets tired of the U.N. twiddling their thumbs, and also of France, which, by virtue of it's veto power attempts to force the U.S. to twiddle it's thumbs, too-and acts!

We deduced Saddam would eventually cause trouble for us, our allies, or even our enemies.

Yes, he is getting on in years-so? Had we not ousted him, does anyone doubt Uday and Qusay, together or separately, had a wide enough sadistic streak to carry on in dear old Dad's name?

Apparently, it was too much of a judgement call for others to make, especially since nobody else had the wherewithal to act in any capacity other than to stand idly by or continue to try to ignore or appease Saddam.

And, now that the deed is done, who's to say what will happen next in the area?

History would seem to dictate a bad end.

Should we have left the Iraqis to their fate? The rest of you seem to think so.

I don't.

Sorry-

[Biggles]

J2K4

I do agree that it is far more than just oil. I am sorry if I appeared to subscribe to the purely economic determinist argument.

I see the action in Iraq as a much broader policy shift in the ME as a whole. However, I feel the action was presented in such a way to the UK and the US people (and the UN in general) as to create a rod for the backs of the political leaders concerned. This may be due to poor on the ground information or a simple mis-calculation, or perhaps a bit of both.

I did say that moving a general peace process in the ME is a worthy cause in its own right. A Palestinian state living at peace side by side would be a feather in the cap of any leader.

I do have concerns about Iraq and the eventual outcome. I think we equiped and fought for a war rather than a long term peace. I think less bombing and a greater number of troops on the ground would have achieved a better longer term position. However, there is little point in going over that now.

I appreciate that there were a number of comments regarding oil and that your response was general one. I fear my rather long winded attempt was to move the debate onto a broader plane and actually away from merely oil and WMD.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If we wanted/needed the oil that badly, why wouldn&#39;t we just barge in and take it, reputation and diplomacy be damned?

We could hardly do worse than we are in the court of world opinion. Why would we have expended such effort or wasted such time in the U.N.?

Really, now-we don&#39;t have to care, so why do we waste time, money, alliances and lives in the effort?

If we went about our "appropriations" baldly and without any pretense whatsoever, could we have possibly damaged our international reputation any further?[/b]

World opinion, as a whole, does not concern the US, and that probably goes for most countries. It&#39;s their "Allies" they need to be careful about. If the western world turned on the US, the consequences would be huge.


<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles
I do not equate the Afghanistan conflict with the Iraqi one as the background is totally different&nbsp; ....&nbsp; The fact that Russians and US companies would like to put a pipeline through the country is neither here nor there. The Taliban were considering the proposition themselves. [/quote]

The Taliban were put in place by the US for that very reason. I believe the failures in Afghanistan, coupled with the necessity to pull out of Saudi Arabia, forced the hand of the US. As j2 said, ..... while it lasted, it offered stability in an otherwise unstable region, and yes, it&#39;s true, the U.S. can&#39;t function without oil. We&#39;re top dog, and we like it that way; we feel our presence in the region lends stability overall, ...

IMO, this is an energy war, 9&#092;11 was an tragic, but ultimately fortunate event for the US.



Edit: Forgot my smilie.

[j2k4]

I feel this is leading to a few questions that I&#39;m going to have to take a bit of time to formulate.

However-

Afghanistan is not the lost cause some of you seem to think.

The U.S. policy is an expedient to save American lives on the ground there, and so critics say the warlords are triumphant.

The warlords, though, operate in fairly territorial fashion, and, while they can certainly be considered a problem, they are not of great overall strategic import; they pose, in the main, difficulties only for each other.

I&#39;m sure the international view of this fact is it constitutes chaos in Afghanistan.

The U.S. view is, "They are peripheral to current foreign policy as re: Afghanistan."

Such are the "economic" pressures when investing American lives-some situations can be left to "solve" themselves.

The Taliban?

It is dead, Billy.

No matter whether you think, as most do with Osama bin Laden and Saddam and whoever else we backed, out of (possibly mis-guided) expedience, it is dead, and we killed it.


Biggles-

Think for a moment of the difficulty of discussing the multi-faceted topic that is the mideast absent the issues of WMD and oil.

&#39;Twould be fascinating-do you think such a conversation would be allowed?

We&#39;d have to charge admission, and employ an "army" of moderators.

Such a conversation could surely escape the rut we currently find ourselves in.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by j2
The Taliban?

It is dead, Billy.

Try telling my Afghani friends that.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean+22 October 2003 - 09:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 22 October 2003 - 09:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2
The Taliban?

It is dead, Billy.

Try telling my Afghani friends that.


[/b][/quote]
Okay, then-

Their numbers have dropped to the point of it being strategically expedient to ignore them.

We are still hunting them, but they are not (again, in our estimation)
a decisive factor.

In any case, I empathize with any and all of your Afghani friends, Billy.


BTW-Top o&#39;the day to you.

Edit: greeting

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by j2k4@22 October 2003 - 23:57
BTW-Top o&#39;the day to you.

Why, thank you j2, and top o&#39;the day to you.

One friend of mine has just returned from a trip home. His family, cousins mainly, are still in Kabul, he got his mother out years ago. He tells me the Taliban run the streets of Kabul at night, when the "peacekeepers" are safely locked up in their compounds. Outlying areas are worse. The warlords are nastier than the Taliban, now there are millions of US dollars to be had. He was told the US is negotiating with the warlords over the pipeline, but that they, the warlords, need to prove they have total control over an area before the US will deal with them.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean+22 October 2003 - 10:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 22 October 2003 - 10:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@22 October 2003 - 23:57
BTW-Top o&#39;the day to you.

Why, thank you j2, and top o&#39;the day to you.

One friend of mine has just returned from a trip home. His family, cousins mainly, are still in Kabul, he got his mother out years ago. He tells me the Taliban run the streets of Kabul at night, when the "peacekeepers" are safely locked up in their compounds. Outlying areas are worse. The warlords are nastier than the Taliban, now there are millions of US dollars to be had. He was told the US is negotiating with the warlords over the pipeline, but that they, the warlords, need to prove they have total control over an area before the US will deal with them.



[/b][/quote]
It seems there is an unfortunate incongruency in situational assessment.

I wish heartily this wasn&#39;t the case.

Would that there were more widespread unification of purpose, and an ability/compulsion to take into account the individual.

Sadly, foreign policy, is, in action, soooooo imperfect.

[Billy_Dean]

It seems there is an unfortunate incongruency in situational assessment.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@22 October 2003 - 10:42

It seems there is an unfortunate incongruency in situational assessment.

Meaning what is good on the one hand is somewhat "less" good on the other.

I must leave now, to tend to my wife&#39;s lunch (she is due home to eat, soon) and some other incredibly important business which bears on my financial well-being.

Edit: excuse for impending (and hopefully short) absence.