War assured of no WMD and no war

Biggles,

Do you now anything about who would have replaced Saddam? Was someone selected and who was to make the selection.

Obviously all the candidates were anti-US (hence the need to invade) or the US would have been happy to let a new leader give it a shot. All the US would ever want from Iraq is a "user-friendly" leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

...a "user-friendly" leader.

---

Uber-clever, that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I note you question the ongoing/continuing validity of U.N. sanctions in light of Saddam's being revealed as a sheep in wolf's clothing.

How do you propose this revelation takes place in the absence of the U.S.'s "Internationally Criminal Act Of Aggression"?

Remember: According to Hobbes' scenario, it hasn't happened...

---

Hobbes gave the scenario that Saddam was "clean" in the original thread, so i suggest you ask him how that came about. My post was based on that given scenario.

Quote:

---

Likely also would be a protracted discussion/argument/debate/holding action/rejection of any idea of retracting the resolutions, as there were a couple members of the "Big Five" Security Council roster who would certainly have been quite smugly satisfied to see things continue apace for a long, long, time.

---

i said that in not so many words in the original

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

unfortunately it often seems that barbaric actions are overlooked at a level that correspondes to the interests of the onlooker.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Remember also that, absent the war, it is likely the Oil-for-Food scandal doesn't see serious light for, well.... probably forever.

---

what does that have to do with anything i posted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I give you a do-over, vid. :D

---

i give you a read over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Hobbes gave the scenario that Saddam was "clean" in the original thread, so i suggest you ask him how that came about. My post was based on that given scenario.

---

Okay, Hobbes-

What about it?

How is it that Saddam is determined to be "clean"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

All the US would ever want from Iraq is a "user-friendly" leader.

---

By that I assume you mean one who can be controlled by the US/West.

There has been a lot said about this war being about oil. Personally I think that's only a minor part of the reason. The main thing was to have someone who could be controlled, particularly now that relations with the Saudi government are beginning to go sour.

Saddam knew he could always stir up trouble in the M.E. simply by pointing at the actions of the Israelis. The West, and in particular the US, needed another area which wouldn't strongly attack western policies relating to the M.E., especially Israel. Saddam fitted this slot very well until the late 80s. After sanctions, it was obvious that Saddam wasn't going to play ball, so he was going to be removed by one method or another.

Of course, the question then remains as to how it would have been done. Indeed, pretty much all the other Muslim governments in the M.E. had little appetite for getting involved since most of them are also repressive to some extent.

Although I don't much like the idea of them, perhaps a hit squad would have been better than the deaths of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of innocents. Although that would probably have left the Ba'ath party in power, they would realise that the action could be repeated. But since the objective was never humanitarian government I think that's what we would have been left with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Okay, Hobbes-

What about it?

How is it that Saddam is determined to be "clean"?

---

Hans Blix says so. He gives his word. Just depends on how much confidence you have in his word.

Vidcc may be right that the context was lost in thread transfer. I did not mean he was clean, just the UN declared him so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

By that I assume you mean one who can be controlled by the US/West.

There has been a lot said about this war being about oil. Personally I think that's only a minor part of the reason. The main thing was to have someone who could be controlled, particularly now that relations with the Saudi government are beginning to go sour.

Saddam knew he could always stir up trouble in the M.E. simply by pointing at the actions of the Israelis. The West, and in particular the US, needed another area which wouldn't strongly attack western policies relating to the M.E., especially Israel. Saddam fitted this slot very well until the late 80s. After sanctions, it was obvious that Saddam wasn't going to play ball, so he was going to be removed by one method or another.

Of course, the question then remains as to how it would have been done. Indeed, pretty much all the other Muslim governments in the M.E. had little appetite for getting involved since most of them are also repressive to some extent.

Although I don't much like the idea of them, perhaps a hit squad would have been better than the deaths of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of innocents. Although that would probably have left the Ba'ath party in power, they would realise that the action could be repeated. But since the objective was never humanitarian government I think that's what we would have been left with.

---

They don't have to be controlled by us, just willing to do business. The US would never ponder taking over Canada or Mexico, our biggest suppliers of oil, because we give them money and we get oil.

Just a friendly face in the Middle East, that is all we need.

I would personally like politicians out of the oil business and back into finding alternative energy sources. I fully blame oil company special interests for corrupting and squelching our "alternative energy commission" with their bribe money and influence. We have had 25 years to transform our society into a non-petroleum based system, but have not. Why? Oil money. You know American companies love high oil prices because it makes it profitable to drill here in America.

Imagine how trivial the Middle East would be if oil had no value. Had we fully applied ourselves in 1980 to become energy self-sufficient none of this would have ever been an issue.

Since I am ranting abit, how does one explain the "sky is falling, the Earth will be out of oil in 40 years" claim in 1980, to the explosive popularity of cars that get 6 mpg, today? Where did all those 50 mpg cars go? What happened to the energy crisis. Marketing and politics :sick:

It is really healthy for a country to be self-sufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Hans Blix says so. He gives his word. Just depends on how much confidence you have in his word.

Vidcc may be right that the context was lost in thread transfer. I did not mean he was clean, just the UN declared him so.

---

Then we are back to square one; Blix says Saddam was clean, ergo Saddam receives a clean bill-of-health from the U.N.?

Then what cause for continuing U.N. sanctions?

The France/Germany/Russia dynamic would surely need to continue, correct?

We have here a cart with horses 5 or 6 abreast, and rigged for all points of the political compass.

I hereby call for the requisite clarifications-I feel bad for complicating things, you know I do-but I'm afraid I must insist. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Biggles,

Do you now anything about who would have replaced Saddam? Was someone selected and who was to make the selection.

Obviously all the candidates were anti-US (hence the need to invade) or the US would have been happy to let a new leader give it a shot. All the US would ever want from Iraq is a "user-friendly" leader.

---

At the time fond hopes were nurtured regarding Chalabi. He was secular, Shi'ite and pro west (apparently). How much he would have found favour in Iraq is hard to determine.

The people that are coming to the fore now - Sistani and Hakim - probably would have done so if there had been a peaceful transition. These were not considered ideal and Rumsfeld made pointed remarks about Islamic Republics as I recall. Hakim's party is called the council for the Islamic revolution (or something of that ilk) - so I guess that position has been modified.

A picture of Hakim - apologies to those who are already familiar with him.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...art/hakimp.jpg

If no WMD are found, Saddam steps down, Chalabi is instituted, then what possible reason could Bush have for going to war? Simply to arrest Saddam. Or did he really feel that Saddam was an imminent threat?

But then again, Saddam would NOT have stepped down, I believe, and that a US chosen Chalabi would have been rejected by the people of Iraq and placed them on the doorstep of inevitability- civil war.

Two different paths to the same destination.