Botnst - 3/12/2005 9:26 AM
JimSmith - 3/11/2005 7:50 PM
Botnst - 3/11/2005 4:07 PM
GermanStar - 3/11/2005 10:27 AM
Botnst - 3/10/2005 5:29 PM
Must be passing strange to ignore facts, truth, and reality with a tenaciously embrace of fantasy.
These might seem incongruent at first glance, but I've seen substantial evidence that Bot-ulism can lead to Iraqnophobia.
You're such a cutey when you're pissed.
Actually guys, I have summed up Bot's position before and will risk his wrath again by summing it up once again. Bot believes oil is worth any risk. Controlling Iraqi oil was his goal, and he could give a shit less if the invasion was sold on WMD when it was known there was no case for them, and if we didn't invade quickly the UN inspectors were going to prove it. The ends justified the means. And, Bot is not real clear on how US government control of Iraqi oil is good for us, he is just sure it is better than if Saddam was controlling it. So, killing and maiming thousands of American kids, while doing the same to tens of thousands of Iraqis, and spending us into near bankruptcy while using fear tactics to restrain our Constitutional Rights and fundamental American Freedoms is all fine. An investment of red American blood for black Iraqi crude oil that will somehow help you and me. I have read most of his points and posts and that about sums it up. Jim
You did okay until you assert that I think the USA should control Iraqi oil. I NEVER said the USA should control Iraqi or any other middleastern oil or any other oil anywhere outside of our territory. I said we were right and it was a good, just and noble action to take to depose that mad bastard and his murderous sons and their depraved regime. The Baathists had continually called for controlling the world through oil pricing and had invaded two countries in furtherance of that goal. Good riddance. I'm glad it got done and I'm proud that we had a hand in it. A secondary goal was removing WMD and thirdly, to midwife a change from despotism to democracy in the middleast. Fourthly, to stop the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by the Baathist bastards. The first goal has been achieved, the second was unnecessary, and the third is underway and may actually succeed. The fourth is attenuated but they are still bombing their own people. My position has been clear since 1991. It is the same now.
The rest of your "analysis" continues on the false trajectory that you injected early-on.
Rather than following your lead in which I present and equally a sloppy synopsis of your argument, why not enlighten us yourself, with your own strategy for dealing with Saddam, 1992 to the present. If at all possible, differentiate it from the French approach.
1992 and 2003 were two entirely different sets of circumstances. In 1992 Saddam was not the skeleton of a political influence and military capability he was in 2003. I would have supported an effort to end his political career with the first Gulf War. But we didn't.
In 2003 Saddam presented no special threat to us. Osamma Bin Laden was the head of the organization threatening us, and his is the organization that still lights the particular security threat color lights today. Osamma should be the target of our billions of dollars. Saddam was relatively meaningless. The UN inspectors and sanctions had Saddam hog tied while our enforcement of "no-fly" zones had him under the tightest possible surveillance. If he had WMD, which I believed he did from the pronouncements by the President, we surely would know. If he didn't, I think we also would surely have known. He didn't and we were lied to by the President.
Iraqi oil was for sale like any other oil from the region. If we wanted it we could have bought it. There was no need to invade Iraq for their oil.
I supported the Congressional Resolutions that made clear we were not in the regime building business. There were specific resolutions passed that made it plain that we were going support an uprising against Saddam but only with out of country training, weapons supplies and other humanitarian support. No American soldiers were allowed by these resolutions to invade Iraq, until the last one, which allowed the invasion as a last resort to protect us against an imminent WMD threat from Saddam. It clearly stated regime change, specifically prohibited by the earlier resolutions, was not grounds for invading.
Unlike you, I am not convinced our way is the only way. I do not believe there is some DNA encoded directive that humans must live in our brand of freedom. I do not think it is our business to preach our way of life to the world. I think we would be better off making our form of government better for us, and ensuring our way of life here, in our country survives the challenges for economic and military superiority from India and China and the likes for the next century or more, while our domestic issues with race, class, gender and religion are addressed to bring the best of our potential to reality for Americans, first. We like our freedoms, and we put them at risk with $60 billion per month trade imbalances and half trillion dollar annual deficts.
It was imperative to respond to 9-11 and get Osamma. It was not imperative to invade Iraq. We are weaker for having attacked Iraq. And we are becoming weaker in the world's economy by every measure. Saddam doesn't even appear on the first thousand items on my list of national priorities, and hasn't since we let him live after the first Gulf War. Jim