Blogcritics: Comments on Iraq a Mistake?

Comment by BB

Fri, 12 Dec 2003 20:31:07 EST

I must confess that I'm impressed Eric. Your world is in turmoil and you can still rise to the challenge. Congratulations on your son and happy to hear that Dawn is well. Back to the matter at hand. At least we have some common ground (that's the mediator in me). However, (now comes the advocate part) it is not about owning the oil. It is about ensuring the steady flow of crude and prices. There are many Saddams in the world but this one just happened to sit on a huge oil reserve and it was no coincidence he was targeted. Imagine for moment what would have happened had Saddam taken ownership of Kuwait oil. With his military might and clout with the oil cartel he could have wrecked havoc economically as well as compromise the defense of the civilized world. You can't run tanks, jets or missiles on vapour. And who's to say he would have stopped there? History has shown that nations don't go to war for noble causes (contrary to what the propaganda spin doctors would have us believe). They go to war for economic reasons and that's the bottom line.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:58:33 EST

BB, don't disagree about envy and muscle-flexing, but it's not like we GET the oil, it still belongs to Iraq and their infrastructure is years from being at full capacity. This was about finishing a job started 12 years ago, a continuation of the War on Terror, self defense against WMD (even if they aren't found), and trying to turn the worst government in the Middle East into the best. If we got to KEEP the oil that would be another matter.

Comment by BB

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:35:20 EST

I'm not arguing for or against the Gulf War, the war in Iraq or the war against Terrorism. BUT, we must all understand that everybody hates (or envies) a bully (or a perceived bully), regardless of the merits of the cause. When you are the only remaining superpower and you flex your muscles you are going to attract negative attention. How you can avoid that stigma and at the same time protect your borders, well that is a darned good question and I do not pretend to have all the answers. Might make a good discussion though. And Eric, are you saying that I'm full of nonsense? Where's MD when I need her? Sik girl sik. Actually, oil makes perfect sense to me and is the only reasonable explanation. Yes there are alternatives but they are secondary and not a good enough reason on its own to spend billions of dollars and risk lives. Sorry, but that's the way I see it bro.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:13:01 EST

Oil probably played a large part in GW I, but likely very little in GW II. The US should have gone after the terrorists following 9/11, and started to do so by going into Afghanistan. And then, instead of continuing the war on terrorism, the neocons went after Iraq. Bad idea, poor execution.

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:59:49 EST

I staunchly opposed the first Gulf War, believing then (and still) that it was mostly about oil. I tend to be real skeptical of fighting for "American interests" in that I don't wish to see our government spending our blood and money just to support the profit lines of business. That was then, though, and this is now. We've had 9/11, and know that there are dirtbags all over that part of the world actively trying to come here and kill us. Insisting that this is not the reason we went into Iraq this year just reflects willful failure to recognize reality. You might argue that this was not the best way to go about it. Perhaps you're right. I just don't see a better way. What would you war opponents do to protect America instead? Nothing? Sit here waiting for the next 9/11? Kiss ass on the thugs in the hope that if we talk real nice, they'll just go away? Again, what realistic idea do you have for knocking out this huge ongoing threat other than taking a stick to the miscreants? HOW ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO STOP SONSABITCHES FROM COMING HERE TO KILL US BY THE BATCHES?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:10:46 EST

Thanks Dan, I more or less agree with everything you said and you said it well. And BB my friend, it's not about the oil. That's the one thing most non-US citizens of whatever political stripe say and that most US citzens, including many who were dead against the war agree on. It may have been about a lot of things and perhaps not all of them were "honorable" (like Sandra, I don't much care "why"), but it was not about oil. It just doesn't make sense.

Comment by Dan

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:22:19 EST

All sides have expressed some reasonable views, but here are a few of my thoughts: 12 years ago there wasn't a multilateral mandate to take Saddam out. People tend to forget that. You can say that the US doing it now is unilateral, but the international support the US does have is significant and is based on the violation of sanctions agreed on by the UN Security Council regarding weapon inspections etc. In my view France Germany et. al. didn't go along because of selfish financial interests with Saddam. I think it is right to leave them out of the contracts now. The US shouldn't worry about alienating them now any more than they worried about alienating the US then. Any time they would like to regain good standing with the US, they could send peace keeping forces to help out. It seems like it is always the US that is asked to examine its policies to find out why terrorists hate us. I think they hate us for who we are, not what we do. I said before that I didn't know for sure if the Iraqi's deserve a better government. It seems illogical, but not everyone wants freedom (limited) and democracy. Many in this country (US) would subvert the principles of the Constitution. All in all I do feel like the US is more secure having taken the offensive. It sounds crude to say that maybe force is all they can understand, but it might be true. Of course there are innocents, but there are innocents here as well. War is hell of course, but at least it's over there. If other places on the globe are less secure now because of our offensive, then it should make it clear to them who the bad people are, (the terrorists)and draw them in to a more pro-active stance, which is the kind of multi-lateral coalition we are looking for.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:18:01 EST

Hal, ok, lets just face it. I am not interested in your links. Okay? I dont care what you think about that. If you think the grateful dead were right, well, yipee for you. I disagree with you and i have posted my disagreement. End of story.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:11:45 EST

The idea that I will allow myself to read material repeating the same points of view I have heard ad nauseum against the Iraq war and its consequences all in the aid of raising doubts in my own wisely;) That's what I'm talking about - the links I gave you were to people arguing FOR the war. The Grateful Dead were right.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:07:32 EST

BB, for me, its irrelevant the motivation. You may be spot on. I will not argue that. However, this war was not against a peaceful nation minding its business and no source of threat to the free world. It was against a tyrant who had killed more people than the War ever did, a man in breach of. international Law and a man that crude as it may sound, had to be taken out. If not, it would have ended up as Rwanda where they argued about the rights and wrongs of going in until thousands of people were tortured and slaughtered to death. So, if Bush wants Oil, well france did not go in cos they wanted to keep making backhand cash. Everybody's a thief. Nobody is a saint in world politics and once we understand that, we realise that the end justifies the means. Iraq is still a dangerous place now. People are still dying but its FREE of that man's rule and people are not dying because they dared to tell Qusay that he could not rape thier sister or brother. Its a free nation with all the budding problems of newly freed nations. It will take time to sort it out. It may never be completely sorted out but where in the world is without its problems? I just find it amazing that people can think because Bush may have had ulterior motives for going in, the removal of Sadaam was a pointless venture and America is now at risk because of it. I don't think reasoning can get any more preposterous than that and I just refuse to fill my mind with such and align myself with that school of thought. Yeah Bush may be selfish, greedy, maybe it is all about Oil, but in the process he got rid of a man who was killing, slaughtering, torturing men, women and children just for the hell of it, for reasons that you and I take as our God give right. These people were killed on those grounds. Do you think if you asked the Iraqi child whose whole family was wiped out by sadaam, "oh, look here boy, we'll be taking lots of your Oil, but we'll get rid of this here bastard"..do you think that child would have said.,.NO, We want our Oil? Only people like you in the West are so worried about where the Oil is going. The average suffering Iraqi human burdened with all sorts of psychological trauma could give a rats ass who gets the Oil. Its not like they will not get paid for it, however cheap it is. Afterall, its not like sadaam was sharing the benefits of the Oil with his people. I just refuse to understand such reasoning and I put myself in the shoes of an Iraqi living there all these years like the many I saw in documentaries through out the War, the exiled who were happy about the war, and I think to myself, who gave me the right to protest against this war on some self righteous grounds about morality and supposed ecomic motives? Humanity itself demanded that Sadaam be removed and whatever the reasons and whatever way it took, he is out and thats all I care about and i dare say thats what the average Iraqi person cares about.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:48:56 EST

Thats right darling, I refuse to let anything "new" in:) The idea that I will allow myself to read material repeating the same points of view I have heard ad nauseum against the Iraq war and its consequences all in the aid of raising doubts in my own wisely;) held views pro the war is simply not up my street. So indeed, I refuse to let anything "new" in:) As long as we both sleep easy standing firm in our beliefs, there'll be nothing lost, huh?! Happy preaching:)

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:48:11 EST

Eric, the dead horse gets it one last time: I think I meant "pro-Bush" as in "pro-Bush" not as in "pro-Bush policies," but at this point ... :-)

Comment by BB

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:31:09 EST

Recent American History 101 in a nutshell: Let's not be naive. Bush senior waged the Gulf War to stop Saddam from taking Kuwait oil. Bush junior finished the job and seized Iraq to ensure the flow of oil to America for years to come. There are hundreds of Saddams in the world, but only one who sat on the 3rd largest oil field in the world. Bush junior won't leave Iraq until he has a stable pro-American government in place. It's all about the oil to ensure that America can keep her tanks rolling and jets flying. Human rights issues etc. are smoke and mirrors. Iraq was calculated and Osama was the excuse needed to finish the job, and in the words of the immortal Stone Cold Steve Austin - "And that's the bottom line."

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:03:02 EST

That comes out sounding pretty balanced to me.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:18:36 EST

A few more things: the book isn't "pro-Bush," the book is just the book No. It includes parts where he praises Bush's leadership and general wonderfulness without clear justification for the insertion. Overall, it struck me as a reasonably straight-forward bit of reporting, with a smidge of "smarm" where you could see Woodward wanted to keep his contacts with power. My bottom line was: not terrific writing but well worth reading for what is revealed about the process, including some details that the administration might have preferred to leave out.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:10:33 EST

"Sandra: Tell me something I don't know. God knows I tried, but you refused to let anything new in.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:44:57 EST

Hal: "I should have been paying attention" Sandra: A habit of yours perhaps?! Tell me something I don't know.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:52:42 EST

1. Circumstances were different twelve years ago. Saddam had invaded a friendly country and taking him out then would have had some justification. At that time, he also threatened the US oil supplied by Kuwait, so that would have been in the national interest. 2. Executing the extreme neocon agenda but selling it to America as part of a war on terror, when Saddam was not part of the terrorist threat to the US, was utterly underhanded and illegitimate. The neocon agenda was, in fact, never mentioned by the administration, nor has it been yet. Bush did finally admit that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:51:46 EST

A few more things: the book isn't "pro-Bush," the book is just the book, there are "pro-Bush" elements and anti-Bush elements if a pretty straight telling of events can be classified that way. And again, how does the fact that "neocons" have been hoping and planning for regime change in Iraq somehow make it illegitimate? It should have been done 12 years ago. The results are the results and the results are ultimately for the good for iraq, the US, the Middle East, and the world.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:33:47 EST

Umm, make that "Sandra's statement.." I should have been paying attention.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:02:16 EST

"i will not read Hal's sources because the point they are making is a nonsense to me." Just to clarify for anyone paying attention: they're not my sources, they're a pro-Bush book, and links to statements of the very pro-invasion neoconservatives. Sarah's statement seems to be self-defining.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:58:19 EST

Al, I do not "not" read things because I know I am going to disagree. How do I know I am going to disagree if I have not read it? I said, i will not read Hal's sources because the point they are making is a nonsense to me. Perhaps I should have gone on to add that I am not that interested in reading articles about why people disagree with the War thats come and gone. I read all sorts and disagree more often than not..I meant in this particular situation. I post here to exchange opinions, carry out debates, argue. Hey, hopefully I will change a few opinions, they might change mine, but I am not going to lose sleep over it. The main reason I post is to air my own view on whatever the matter is..if I happen to persuade somebody to agree with me along the way..fabulous! If not, oh well! I meant my lack of interest, once again, in this particular situation. I have no interest in changing Hal's mind. This does not mean I may not be interested in changing the mind of Joe Bloggs over another topic. It simply means, I have no interest in changing Hal's mind. I am not in the business of changing minds which might be a flaw:) I think it is something that is incidental to me having put my opinion out there. I dont state my opinion, atleast not on this site, because I am hoping to change opinions. Sadly or luckily in some cases;) I do not know any of you personally, so what would changing your minds achieve in the broad span of things? Nothing. I enjoy the interaction and anytime I do change any minds, I will have a triple Vodka and Cranberry juice or a Flapper cocktail:) Till then, I'll just keep posting my opinions that might agree or disagree with the varying opinions on show.

Comment by Al Barger

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:10:15 EST

Sanra, I don't read everything that people throw at me in that I simply can't keep up with it all. However, when you say that you're not going to read things simply because you know you're going to disagree, then you discredit yourself. It's not just how many articles or how many words expressing opinions that you agree or disagree, but how much of what kind of facts and documentation and reasoned arguments are involved. It's a question of quality, not quantity. If you have "have no interest in persuading you to agree with me or see my point of view" then why do you even bother to post? The underlying idea of all this stuff is to reason together to improve all of our thinking. I don't mean this to be crappy with you. I'm with you on the conclusion. Hal is, not to put too fine a point on it, ALL WRONG. The country must be defended aggressively against people who want to kill us. There are plenty of reasonable arguments about the best way to approach this, but we can't afford to just wait for the SOBs to come to America and KILL US. Killing one or two of these buttmunches here and there must continue to be done, but is not going to be sufficient to get the job done. We have to take the fight to the enemy. We need to be tearing up their nests. That's exactly what we're doing in Iraq. There are numerous nesting places for these people, and several reasonable arguments for different places to have started. Iran or Syria would have been good choices, perhaps, but you have to start somewhere. Maybe our actions in Iraq will back some of the others up a step or two, saving us from having to go into major conflicts in other countries. Or maybe we'll be marching into Syria a year or two down the line. One thing, though: we can't just sit and wait for the jackasses to kill US.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:53:51 EST

Facts, shfacts, Hal. I am sure I could find a hundred articles pro my point of view and bring them to you as sources and therefore "facts" but I have no interest in persuading you to agree with me or see my point of view. Now, THAT, is a fact.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:23:34 EST

" The point it is making is such a complete nonsense to me that I refuse to read it. Ah, yes, nothing like a bit of reasoned discourse based on facts.