Why we SHOULD have invaded Iraq

[Kuciwalker]

Remember, this is a debate over what we should do or should have done, not necessarily whether or not what we ARE DOING is wrong.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by yago
A. Establish an equally oppressive regime. I think that's the only reason for US-troops to remain in Iraq.

If you really want an oppressive regime to fill the power vaccum left by Saddam, we can leave fairly quickly. However if you want a democracy to fill it, we're going to have to stay for awhile.

[TCO]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I get SO tired of hearing that oil crap.
Go get your facts straight. We don't NEED Iraq oil.

If w wanted oil, we would go after Mexico. How do you think we got the Southwest...

[Sava]

Learn the geography of the area, Che. Saddam wanted to control all the oil fields in the Gulf including the Saudi ones. They are all quite close together.

Sure. But there's a difference between want some tinpot dictator wants, and what he's capable of doing. I'll make this analogy to Saddam and this war. We basically wanted to stop somebody from commiting rape. Except the suspected rapist was a quadrapeligic with no shlong.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GP


If w wanted oil, we would go after Mexico. How do you think we got the Southwest...

Mexico is already our economic slave.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sava

Sure. But there's a difference between want some tinpot dictator wants, and what he's capable of doing. I'll make this analogy to Saddam and this war. We basically wanted to stop somebody from commiting rape. Except the suspected rapist was a quadrapeligic with no shlong.

Learn the geography. Read Schwartzkopf's book. Pull your head out of your ass. Get drunk in Lincoln Park. Enjoy the summer.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I get SO tired of hearing that oil crap.
Go get your facts straight. We don't NEED Iraq oil.

However, since oil is traded on NYMEX and elsewhere, and is a global commodity with a 24/365 marketplace, "influencing" how much Iraqi oil gets sold gives us leverage on the global market. We don't need the black slimy crap that dribbles out of the ground, no, but we do benefit in strategic terms from having even indirect control of the resource.

Give us the Saudis, and we own the economic well-being of the entire industrialized world.

[Spiffor]

Skywalker :
The "Saddam is bad" argument is not enough, far from it, because it doesn't handle about the future of Iraq.
In another thread, I explain how dangerous it is to intervene abroad with moralistic preconceptions without trying to see what the other's moralistic stance is. More clearly, it is dangerous to impose our definition of "good" there without knowing what their definition of "good" is.

Yes, the Iraqis knew saddam was a bloody astards, and I'm sure 99% of them are glad he's finished. But what do the Iraqis want instead ?
The only organized opposition groups in Iraq are the Shiite clergy and the Kurdish nationalists. Revolted Iraqis didn't want democracy; they wanted either a theocracy (Shiites) or fostered rabid nationalism. Both aren't "good" in our book. Yet, bith are "good" in their partisan's book. There was no real urge for democracy in Iraq, and there is still none. Chalabi et. al. are a gathering of intellectuals and businessmen that do not represent the actual demands of the average Iraqi.

Today, most Iraqis want safety and decent conditions of life. Most will probably be satisfied if democracy could bring it, but I don't think it's their main concern right now.

There was no real urge for democracy in Iraq, and the trend continues. Yet, the US wants to impose its preconception of "good" (i.e democracy) in a population that might be more ready for theocracy or nationalism. If the US goes forth to impose these views through force, they'll only get resentment for this, and a backlash at some point.

"Saddam is bad" is not an argument enough. It must come along with the refusal of "flock to the true good, ours" attitude.
Had the Iraqis wanted Democracy, the agression would have been justified.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GP


If w wanted oil, we would go after Mexico. How do you think we got the Southwest...

You've already got it. Fox is worried about what happens if Bush ever runs out of boots for him to lick.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


However, since oil is traded on NYMEX and elsewhere, and is a global commodity with a 24/365 marketplace, "influencing" how much Iraqi oil gets sold gives us leverage on the global market. We don't need the black slimy crap that dribbles out of the ground, no, but we do benefit in strategic terms from having even indirect control of the resource.

Give us the Saudis, and we own the economic well-being of the entire industrialized world.

If we wanted more supply, why not eliminate the sanctions when Saddam was in power.

[Kuciwalker]

No one seems to notice that the majority of US oil comes from... NO! not CANADA! yup

[TCO]

Originally posted by skywalker
No one seems to notice that the majority of US oil comes from... NO! not CANADA! yup

majority of imported oil maybe. I think our self-suppy is more than what we get from Canada. I remember gigging Kitty on this.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You've already got it. Fox is worried about what happens if Bush ever runs out of boots for him to lick.

Do you favor a more anti-US politician (or less pro-US) down there? Who?

[SlowwHand]

Spiffor, nothing is "good enough" for those of you deperate to not look ignorant.

[TCO]

Mikey has a real point when he says that we are benefited by a lower price of oil. We truly are. It is a cartel-controlled commodity. And if we can go back to an oil glut and free competition, like in the 80's, it would be a huge boon to the US and all oil-importing states. (but would hurt Texas.)

The interesting thing is that some of the oil guys will be hurt from this. Bush Sr. got a black eye from the REagan administration when he told the Saudis that prices were too low. (The Reaganites wanted cheaper prices (i.e the cartel to crack). Cheney has also made some statements (well maybe pre-election) where he was in favor of "stable prices". I don't want stable prices. I want the bottom to fall out and the cartel to never get its act together.