Please Correct me if i am wrong here

[The Afoci]

First let me start by saying that I feel invading Iraq is what should be done. I feel that it is clearly obvious that he has killed many of his own people, is producing biological weapons and is also attempting to make nuclear weapons. But even if he isn't doing the later two things, wouldn't the first be enough?

Now I understand that many countries in Africa and other regions have dictators that are doing the same thing(I also think we should intervene there), but for those that are opposed to this war, would you be against aggression to help liberate those people. From what I understand, "you" (the people who are against this war, not a bad thing by the way) would also be against anything to help those people.

I also understand this is about oil, but to me that is a great bonus to this war. Not only are we helping the oppressed people of Iraq, help prevent the spreading of nuclear and biological weapons, but we are securing stability in our economy by providing us with a stable oil source(for the few of us who like the option to drive a vehicle that doesn't run on left over spinach).

Also I have one question for those opposed to war with Iraq, do you honestly beleive that leaving Saddam in power is the right and moral thing to do knowing what he does to his people?

Just for clarification, I am pro war here, but I like the fact that debate can occur, and do not think that those against it are anti-american, but i just want to try to understand your point of view.

[Alf]

We (France) try to intervene in Ivory Coast between loyalists and rebels and now it's a complete mess... Of course there is no oil there, but there is cocoa which is primarily used by Pepsi (and that seems to be the main reason that our army was there => to get sure that the cocoa business is still running...).

Different countries => Same objectives...

[The Afoci]

Do people in your country say your leader kills for cocoa, because if they do, that would be very cool.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by The Afoci
Do people in your country say your leader kills for cocoa, because if they do, that would be very cool.

Tarkus

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by The Afoci
First let me start by saying that I feel invading Iraq is what should be done. I feel that it is clearly obvious that he has killed many of his own people, is producing biological weapons and is also attempting to make nuclear weapons. But even if he isn't doing the later two things, wouldn't the first be enough?

Now I understand that many countries in Africa and other regions have dictators that are doing the same thing(I also think we should intervene there), but for those that are opposed to this war, would you be against aggression to help liberate those people. From what I understand, "you" (the people who are against this war, not a bad thing by the way) would also be against anything to help those people.

I also understand this is about oil, but to me that is a great bonus to this war. Not only are we helping the oppressed people of Iraq, help prevent the spreading of nuclear and biological weapons, but we are securing stability in our economy by providing us with a stable oil source(for the few of us who like the option to drive a vehicle that doesn't run on left over spinach).

Also I have one question for those opposed to war with Iraq, do you honestly beleive that leaving Saddam in power is the right and moral thing to do knowing what he does to his people?

Just for clarification, I am pro war here, but I like the fact that debate can occur, and do not think that those against it are anti-american, but i just want to try to understand your point of view.

Didn't the U.S. do Mogadishu? It failed after casualties, the U.S. never seems to forget when things go bad (Vietnam is just now back into trade with the U.S. right?). I read a National Geographic on Mogadishu now, it's far worse now, far far worse.

Helping oppressed people is nice, but not at the expense of soldier's lives or votes. Since most of Africa is in disarray, it will probably not happen for a while, stability is unheard of and I believe that Africans are very distrustful of any outside influences thanks to years of being oppressed by European countries supported by the grand ole U.S.A.

African nations will be monitored (a bunch are becoming pro-Muslim havens) but I doubt much will be done.

[The Afoci]

I guess in a way i was wondering if there were people against going to iraq(more than likely because of oil, not against saving the people), but who would want to go into africa to help those people(thus making us more moral because there wasn't any material gain for the country).

[Fritz]

Originally posted by The Afoci
I also understand this is about oil

I think that is just popular opinion among skeptics.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by The Afoci
I guess in a way i was wondering if there were people against going to iraq(more than likely because of oil, not against saving the people), but who would want to go into africa to help those people(thus making us more moral because there wasn't any material gain for the country).

going in would not make us more moral. it may been seen as a moral act.

Other than PR, what would US the gain from a foreign policy that supported African Interventionism? I can see none, but I only have a limited knowledge of Western and Sub-Saharan Africa.

[The Afoci]

Fritz, I don't think the whole thing is about oil. I believe there are numerous reasons to go into iraq, but actually, I think oil should be a big part of it. We have a chance to kill 2 birds with one stone so to speak by taking out saddam and securing a steady flow of oil for our country.

edit for clarification

[Fritz]

We have steady flows of oil without Iraq.

[clintl]

Some of the hawks in the Bush Administration are actually talking about access to the Iraqi oil fields as the "spoils of war." So it is not mere opinion on the part of skeptics, and as far as I'm concerned, there is little that differentiates that aspect of the Bush Administration's objectives from armed robbery.

With respect to freeing the Iraqi people, if the U.S. actually followed through with a plan to rebuild Iraq after the war, and help them establish their own democratic institutions, this might be a good thing to come from the war. However, the guy who seems to be the No. 1 U.S. choice to succeed Saddam is under house arrest in Denmark, accused of war crimes for gassing Kurds while serving as one of Saddam's generals. This does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the judgment of the Bushies. It does, however, fit extremely well into the long pattern of conservative U.S. presidents maneuvering to oust vicious dictators who don't like us in favor of vicious dictators who do. Putting it bluntly, I think there are large numbers of people in the Bush Administration, including the president and vice president, who regard democracy beyond our borders as an inconvenience. It was, quite frankly, embarrassing to watch Bush get so torqued about Schroeder's re-election campaign in Germany last year, when what Schroeder did was well within the conventional and accepted parameters of debate in a free, democratic nation. I have little trust in Bush and any of his henchmen, with the exception of Colin Powell, and maybe occasionally Condoleeza Rice.

[The Afoci]

What I am getting at is a more steady price i guess.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
It does, however, fit extremely well into the long pattern of conservative U.S. presidents maneuvering to oust vicious dictators who don't like us in favor of vicious dictators who do.

Come on clint, don't be so one sided. Conservative and Liberal Presidents select the same types of people. The prime criteria is the new guy must be pro US (or as pro-US as we can find.)

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
Some of the hawks in the Bush Administration are actually talking about access to the Iraqi oil fields as the "spoils of war."

But is this a guiding objective of possible action in Iraq? I don't think it is.

[clintl]

That was true in the past, Fritz. However, I think since the Carter Administration, liberals have put more effort into promoting democracy as a worldwide ideal than conservatives have. I agree that both want the new guy to be pro-U.S. And I'm not saying that given a choice, conservatives don't prefer a reliable democratic ally over a reliable dictatorial ally. But I think the preference is a little lower on the priority scale. In the specific case of Iraq, I'm concerned that there are people in the Bush Administration leading us down a path which we have taken before on numerous occasions and regretted.

[Fritz]

Clint,

Right behind pro-US is the desire for a "strong" leader. I am guessing that the GOvt. folks have not identified a candidatge that is pro-US/strong/ and versed in democracy.

A problem with regimes that have been in power for a while is it can be hard to find people who both know how to run a govt and have a democratic outlook. even with open and free elections it is very probable that people would elect a popular thug. Then what? With the exception or the ruling faction/clan/party/junta there can be difficulty even finding local administrative types.

National Democracy in the modern age is a sophisticated thing. I don't know if you can find many examples of a lasting democratic govt brought on as the result external military intervention.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
But is this a guiding objective of possible action in Iraq? I don't think it is.

To be honest, not entirely. Keeping oil supplies open and reliable is an important consideration, however, and it would not matter who was president. I just find it distasteful that there are still people who believe that this kind of profiteering is a legitimate objective. I believe that there isn't a single guiding objective, but rather multiple ones of varying degrees of legitimacy, including:

1) the openly stated objective of removing a possible menace to the world
2) protecting the flow of oil supplies
3) protecting Israel from possible WMD attacks (though we can't say this openly)
4) finishing what Bush's dad didn't
5) installing a friendly regime in the region

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
National Democracy in the modern age is a sophisticated thing. I don't know if you can find many examples of a lasting democratic govt brought on as the result external military intervention.

Germany, Japan, Italy, and maybe Turkey.

Although I agree with you that it's a tricky thing to do, and that it may be harder in Iraq than in many places to find someone. I just think that if the best they can come up with is an accused war criminal, they haven't been looking hard enough.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
To be honest, not entirely. Keeping oil supplies open and reliable is an important consideration, however, and it would not matter who was president. I just find it distasteful that there are still people who believe that this kind of profiteering is a legitimate objective. I believe that there isn't a single guiding objective, but rather multiple ones of varying degrees of legitimacy, including:

1) the openly stated objective of removing a possible menace to the world
2) protecting the flow of oil supplies
3) protecting Israel from possible WMD attacks (though we can't say this openly)
4) finishing what Bush's dad didn't
5) installing a friendly regime in the region

But Iraqi oil is not currently a factor, if I understand the sanctions that have been levied against Iraq for the past 12 years. Protecting ships in the region would be protecting the current flow of oil.

Saying that gaining Iraqi oil is a policy consideration would be aquiring a new source of petrol. It would be interesting to see the plan for managing this resource in the context of OPEC.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
Germany, Japan, Italy, and maybe Turkey.

Although I agree with you that it's a tricky thing to do, and that it may be harder in Iraq than in many places to find someone. I just think that if the best they can come up with is an accused war criminal, they haven't been looking hard enough.

Germany and Italy both had some democratic foundations. Japan is more interesting, but again we have a country with good govt. but poor direction.

I think Turkey transitioned after a revolution or coup.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
But Iraqi oil is not currently a factor, if I understand the sanctions that have been levied against Iraq for the past 12 years. Protecting ships in the region would be protecting the current flow of oil.

Saying that gaining Iraqi oil is a policy consideration would be aquiring a new source of petrol. It would be interesting to see the plan for managing this resource in the context of OPEC.

This is not quite true. Iraq has been allowed to sell some of its oil in exchange for humanitarian supplies for several years under the terms of the sanctions, and the U.S. happens to be the largest purchaser of this Iraqi oil currently.

Also, the perceived threat to supplies does not just concern Iraqi oil, but also the possibility of a repeat of the Kuwait invasion or the invasion of another of its neighbors.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
Germany and Italy both had some democratic foundations. Japan is more interesting, but again we have a country with good govt. but poor direction.

I think Turkey transitioned after a revolution or coup.

Turkey is a problematic example because it evolved over a long time, but the roots of its transition to democracy, I think, can be traced back to losing in war.

[MizzouRah]

Yeah, it's not like we can produce electric cars or anything. Once we have the technology I'm sure the government will get rid of gas powered cars. "Who needs oil?" Is what the president will say.







Todd

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Fritz
We have steady flows of oil without Iraq.

With a steady flow from Iraq we can stop relying on a steady flow from Saudi Arabia, because they are the source of 90%* of the money for Wahhabism and Islamic Terrorism.


*My guess.

[bamcgee]

bishop's on the money there. The Saudis are the ultimate threat.

As far as the Bushies taste in leaders goes, how about Karzim in Afghanistan? Hard to argue that he wasn't an excellent choice.

[Easy Mac]

The question I think we have to ask is, are we committed to stay in Iraq (regardless of a concern for oil) to help foster democracy. Instilling a leader whom we think is pro-US or pro-democracy isn't going to do us any good if we only stay 2-3 years and then move on to a new country to fight (which, in an endless hunt for terrorism and insane dictators, is quite likely I would assume).

We have to stay at the minimum 5-10 years to even hope democracy has a chance. I just don't see that kind of commitment from our government, Dem or Rep. The region is not exactly conducive for democracy, and its seems democracy has failed almost anywhere outside the "civilized countries". (best term I could think of, basically I mean Westernized.) I just don't see any chance for democracy succeeding, at least within 20 years, in the mid-east or any other place we intervene. Nor do I see our government as willing to put in the effort needed to establish democracy.

We can't just throw in some rules and drastically change their system and expect it to churn out Silicon Valley or a cotton belt. If Russia has shown anything, its that democracy is something that has to be put in gradual, and I don't even think the American people have the patience to send billions of dollars to the Mid-east ot ensure it happens. Plus, they laws seem for the most part grounded in Islam, so basically we'll be ripping up thousands of years of heritage, something I'm not sure the Iraqi citizens nor their neighbors will be pleased about.

I'd say the oil is probably the best reason we have to see dmeocracy prosper, because it would be the one thing that would keep us involved, if it somhow served our interests. If the administration would come up with rhetoric along those lines, coupled with the "Saddam's bad" terrorist stance they use now, I'd wouldn't be as apposed to the war as I currently am (though I would still far prefer diplomacy, but I don't trust Saddam, so I'll agree its probably the worst course that could be taken). But of course, I just want what I perceive as the truth, the actual leftists want Bush's head on a stick if he said oil was a factor.

[BishopMVP]

Now, whether we stay or not is up for debate, but nobody can say conclusively. I believe that we will, like in Afghanistan so far, while you (seem to) believe we won't. However, Easy Mac, ask yourself this question: Will the Iraqi people be better off in ten years if we let Hussein continue in power unchecked or if we go in, establish a half-hearted democracy, stay in for a couple of years and gradually leave. I would unquestionably say number 2, even under a worst-case scenario. Yeah, there's a chance we will put someone in power worse than Saddam, but there is also a chance of Saddam deciding to abdicate and give back all the wealth, then prance around spreading joy and love.

[Easy Mac]

Well, the point of the sanctions was to check Saddam's power, its not his fault we didn't enforce it hard enough (not apologizing for Saddam, we just let him get away with too much).

I'm not questioning whether the people will be better off. If we go in there half-assed without full support in the future, it will probably be better. But even slightly better isnt really improving these people's lives. If we don't go in there and turn the country around so to speak, it will just give the extremists more fuel for the fire, and I don't think this is something that is being fully taken into account by anyone, myself included. If it doesn't work, then we just look like tyrants to any fanatic with a weapon, we're no better than Saddam (if they held him in low regard, which they may since he kills other Muslims correct, not sure) to middle-easterners.

[Hammer755]

Wow, a topic regarding an invasion of Iraq that turned into an actual intellectual discussion and not a conservative/liberal flame war. Good show, gentlemen.

[astralhaze]

FYI on the Conservative Presidents supporting dictators and Liberals supporting democracy.

President Kennedy:
-Engaged in clandestine funding of subversive acts in Cuba
-Funded and created a U.S. Army training center in Panama to "to train South and Central American police forces in riot control, intelligence and interrogation techniques"
-The training center was part of Operation Condor which trained police and paramilitary forces from, among others, El Salvador, Haiti, Guatemala, and Brazil and later evolved to include the infamous School Of the Americas.
-Began U.S. involvement in Veitnam. Despite JFK consipracy claims, there is no documented evidence that Kennedy had any plans to withdraw from Vietnam before his death.

President Johnson:
-no comment neccesary.

President Carter:
-Despite excellent rhetoric about human rights, Carter, in fact, increased funding to murderous regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, among others.
-Began the policy of covertly funding the Afghan Islamist rebels in the civil war in Afghanistan. This policy was to eventually lead to $10 billion being poured into fuelling war in the country, and the growth of the forces that today are represented by al-Quaeda.

President Clinton:
-Ordered the bombing of a "chemical weapons" plant in Sudan. The factory turned out to be making Asprin.
-Initiated the bombing campaign in Serbia which killed countless civilians and utterly destroyed the civil infrastructure.
-Stepped up funding to a military government in Columbia engaged in a bloody campaign of repression against left-wing dissidents.

[McSweeny]

wow just read through this thread and i think it was the first one about iraq that didn't get me all steamed up

that being said, I am all for getting rid of Sadaam. I just don't think it's right that we can put someone in power who agrees with us, i mean is that really for us to decide? In theory we could just go kick people's asses and put our boys in charge. A bit extreme, but you get the point.

And i do think that oil is a major concern of bush's. I'm sure that the oil companies have their hands firmly entrenched in his pockets.(which leads me to think that the electric car thing will be put on the back burner).

Granted Sadaam is a horrible person. I agree with that. He shoudn't be in charge. I agree with that. I just don't like the idea of war followed by the instillment of one of our boys(or someone who like us lots.)

I think that's all for now