Originally Posted by Professor
Huh, what bribes? I don't get it! I however understand what you said before that and you made my point that we went to war because Iraq is more strategic to us than say Rwanda. So the issue now is what is so strategic about Iraq that compels us to invade? Oil? Democracy? Israel? I have been seeking an answer for this for a long time but you from all people berated me every time I brought up the subject as if I was on a fishing expedition. You said that there is a strategic interest for us to be there, what is it Bot, let it loose.
I have often repeated why I supported the invasion and it isn't because of WMD, democratization (the neocon thingie), human rights abuse, or failure to comply with the Un resolutions for 12 years. Some people are motivated by those issues but I'm not. It's like Iran and N. Korea. I don't want to bomb them. In fact, I don't give a damn about them. Let them nuke-up and have a party. Unless they threaten something of compelling strategic interest to the USA. Like invading S. Korea or attacking Japan (in the case of N Korea) or giving nukes to terrorists (in the case of Iran). I think those two countries are entirely capable of doing those things and may even want to. But I haven't heard any evidence that they have those interests. When evidence comes up I'll be willing to listen.
Saddam had, since the mid-1980's, tried to get Pan-Arabists to get behind his goal of Arab control of the all of the Persian Gulf oil. His attacks against Iran and Kuwait were both in furtherance of those goals. In the case of fighting Iran, let him. In fact, help him. Let the mad mofos kill each other. But when he moved into Kuwait and threatened KSA and the Emirates, that's a whole 'nuther country.
About 75% of the planetary oil supply comes from the Persian Gulf region. He who can destroy a thing controls that thing. Saddam sought control of the oil. What are the ramifications of a ruthless, ambitious militarist having control of the majority of the oil of the planet?
Industrial agriculture and almost all mechanized transportation depend directly on oil. What would happen if 75% of the oil were taken off the market? Did Saddam have the ruthless ambition and vision necessary to done it?
In my estimation, Saddam in charge of oil would be no better for us than Bin Laden in charge, though I don't think anybody ever accused Saddam of being an Islamist. He adopted that late just to suck-up. His goals were understandable to an Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, Muhammed, Timur, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. He wanted his name in lights down through history. Oil was his source.
Iraq delenda est.
PS Oil for food bribery stuff begin here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4977066