Not in our name... what a joke.

[XerXes]

A number of politicians, media pundits and environmental special interest groups have claimed that the United States only went to war with Iraq to gain control over its oil. In fact, a lot of folks seem to think that the U.S.’ only interest in the Middle East is in oil.

Please.

The truth is that the United States didn’t kick Saddam’s Iraqi but over oil. If it was, war would be the last thing Bush would do. The primary concern is foreign policy in Iraq, period.

The attack on Iraq only served to exacerbate deteriorating U.S. relations with other oil-rich nations in the region. Some oil-exporting countries — Iran, Libya and Nigeria, for instance — already harbor grudges against the United States for past wrongs, both real and imagined, and for our continued support for Israel. Meanwhile, other oil-rich nations in the region who are usually our allies are concerned that siding with the United States against Iraq will cause increased civil unrest — and perhaps even foment armed rebellion. War with Iraq won few friends with other important oil exporters in the region. So yes, it MUST have been about oil.

Please.

If you were only interested in maintaining a regular, low-cost supply of oil from the Middle East, the best policy would be to support the end of sanctions placed on Iraq at the end of the Gulf war. These sanctions have constrained the amount of oil that Iraq could sell on the market, and Saddam has deftly used the sanctions as an excuse to further impoverish Iraqi civilians, which has hampered U.S. efforts to improve diplomatic relations in Islamic countries.

One simply cannot explain why in the face of mounting international pressure to end the sanctions, the United States continued to support them, that is if one truly believes that ensuring a plentiful supply of oil is the primary motive for the Bush administration.

The truth is many things have changed since the second Gulf war (yes, there have been three but people are stupid and fail to realize this). The United States has dramatically diversified its sources of oil. Because of capacity available elsewhere, much of it outside of OPEC's direct control, the oil imported from Iraq is fairly inconsequential — amounting to only approximately 3 percent. And relations with the former Soviet Union have substantially improved since 1990. Russia and other former Soviet states present tremendous opportunities for oil development and supply. So, yes, it MUST have been about oil!

Please.

As a recent study by the National Center for Policy Analysis explains, Iraq's oil reserves are just a drop in the bucket. Contrary to popular belief, oil is relatively plentiful. In fact, according to the University of Oklahoma's David Deming, the world has likely used less than one-third of the world's conventional petroleum resources.

For instance, the United States has large deposits of oil under its public lands and offshore. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) alone likely contains between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil. Six billion barrels of oil, the minimum expected to be recovered from ANWR, would replace all of the oil imported from Iraq for the next 50 years. If one includes unconventional petroleum resources in the mix, Mr. Deming estimates that the world may have more than a 500-year supply of oil at year 2000 productions rates. In short, in terms of lives and dollars, we have less costly sources of oil then going to war with Iraq. We went to Iraq because it was necessary.

The United States has plenty of reasons to go to war with Iraq, from Saddam's support for terrorism, his continuing attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and to end his reign of terror and bring him to justice both for war crimes his military committed during the Gulf war and for his regimes' brutal violations of international human rights committed against his own people.

Looked at the news recently? Over 15,000 bodies found in mass graves from the uprising in 1991? It must have been about oil!

Please.

That the Bush administration went to war with Iraq over oil makes for a good conspiracy theory. But, as with many such theories, it has little basis in fact. A lot like some of the other posts in this section of the forum.

XerXes

[Metal_Dolan]

woaw, you've really thought about that one

[Red_Baron]

Cue Alan.........................................

[AlanG]

Well I didnt reply because it didn't merit one from me. Mainly cos the arguement he was attacking wasn't one made by me. Added to the fact it was his rambling anyway:

"Mr. Deming estimates that the world may have more than a 500-year supply of oil at year 2000 productions rates."

yes, realistic future. No one in the world envisions that oil use will increase...

[AlanG]

Also, in before XerXes replies, if we went to war because of Saddams human rights record, why did we gratefully count Uzbekistan as one of our allies?

Human Rights in Uzbekistan

Torture remained routine and new methods of abuse were reported in 2000. In addition to hundreds of reports of beatings and numerous accounts of the use of electric shock, temporary suffocation, hanging by the ankles or wrists, removal of fingernails, and punctures with sharp objects, Human Rights Watch received credible reports in 2000 that police sodomized male detainees with bottles, raped them, and beat and burned them in the groin area. Male and female detainees were regularly threatened with rape. Police made such threats in particular against female detainees in the presence of male relatives to force the men to sign self-incriminating statements. Police also regularly threatened tomurder detainees or their family members and to place minor children in orphanages. Self-incriminating testimony obtained through torture was routinely admitted by judges, who cited this as evidence, often the only evidence, to convict. Courts did not initiate investigations into allegations of mistreatment by police.

Torture and ill-treatment in prisons was rampant, and there were several shocking reports of deaths in custody from torture in prisons. In the infamous Jaslyk prison dozens of inmates reportedly died from mistreatment and disease. There were several shocking reports of torture causing the death of detainees and prisoners.

no hypocrisy there....

[AlanG]

other members:

Albania - media control
Azerbaijan - Rigs Elections
Colombia - child soldiers
El Salvador - child soldiers
Eritrea - nine jailed journalists who have been in detention without charge since September 2001 (what happenned that month?)
Ethiopia - Academic freedom, whats that?
Georgia - torture, no freedom of religion
South Korea - where to start?
Macedonia -
Murder of civilians
Philippines - kiddy soldiers again
Turkey - suppression of some ethnic group, Kurds or something could it be? I have no idea, surely if a reason for attacking Saddam was his suppression of the Kurds we would judge Turkey the same, so it *can't* be them....

Yey for the upholders of human rights, and thats just the original bunch, the ones I knew had violations, didnt check the whole list or the later additions

[kj]

what about the British record of human rights during their rule over India? Take General Dire's (sp) slaughter of hundreds of innocent and unarmed civilians in Amritsar? The theft of priceless indian artifacts from various religious sites in India, many of which are on DISPLAY in British museums.

quick to dismiss others...

[AlanG]

I wasnt dismissing what Britain has done, but these are things that have happenned within the last 3 years, and mostly its the same governments in charge then who are now "fighting against evil". Britain has done that and lots more that has never been apologised for, America is also breaching human rights with having kids on Death Row, but I was waiting a response to throw that one in. It just adds to the point that if this is a war against "evil regimes" why is it evil regimes fighting it?

[XerXes]

You are misrepresenting what I say and using fallacies in argumentation to support your post. How do you expect to be taken seriously if your tactics are to avoid dealing with the issues raised by drumming up ancillary ones to remove the focus from points brought forward?

I was dealing with Iraq specifically. Trying to prove me wrong by addressing issues in other countries doesn’t make you smart. Address the issues in Iraq first, and then we can move onto other areas – happily.

To say, “Oh, well, if it was about human rights why hasn’t the US done anything in country X who has a long history of violations.” Or, “If it was about human rights why would the US ‘gratefully’ partner with a country with similar records.”

We had to partner with Russia to in order to defeat Nazi Germany. Stalin was responsible for 46 million deaths. Does the fact that the allies partnered with Russia (USSR at the time) temporarily automatically prove that our motives were tainted or that we somehow supported him directly as a leader and his HR records? Does it lesson the fact that we deeply desired to put an end the genocide of the Jews et al any less, or indeed that we wanted to see Stalin removed as soon as possible?

Of course not. You know that.

Likewise, we “strategically” partner with other nations for very specific reasons – often begrudgingly – in order to accomplish various political and strategic aims.

In terms of the ANWR report, have you read it? Until you do, you sound like an idiot trying to comment on it or my use of it in the text. Unless you know what it says, how can you possibly disagree with me quoting it? AND, I never suggested that there would be an increase in the use of oil anywhere in my post, only that there is a huge supply available? So what’s your point? It sure isn’t relevant.

Politics is about the possible. It’s not about idealism as you seem to think. There will always be bending and taking, back scratching and back stabbing. That’s the way it works.

All my best.

[XerXes]

Define “kids”? Yes, we have death row but no children are on it. That is ludicrous and completely unfounded.

We must first come to a common ground on the definition of what a “kid” is and THEN we can argue if the US has them on death row.

The youngest person in recent history to be sentenced to death was 16. He will not be executed until he is at least 18. Like in Scotland, 16 is old enough to be tried as an adult.

The U.S. does not execute children. Twenty-two states can try 16 and 17 year-old “kids” for murder and place them in storage on death row until they reach 18. What does that prove? It doesn’t support your argument that the motives for going to Iraq were not somewhat motivated by human rights issues, among the numerous other strategic reasons OVER oil.

[Ross]

Originally posted by XerXes
his continuing attempts to develop weapons of mass

Has anyone actually got any proof of this yet?

[XerXes]

Very good question.

Answering it is not as easy for a number of reasons. In short, this is not a black and white situation. Proof comes in many forms and your perception, as well as that of other readers, will come into play on what it is you expect and accept.

Perhaps another way to phrase it might be along the lines of, “What kind of proof is being offered up and by whom?”

However, in saying that, I would caution you to remember that the burden of proof in terms of compliance with UN SCR 1441 to destroy all elements of WMD / CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) was laid squarely on the shoulders of Saddam by all of the members of the UN Security Council – including France.

In terms of proof, I tend to go to places other than the traditional media as both pundits and politicians often pursue a social agenda and are not interested in the truth but rather providing a case to support their own perceptions.

Often humans are like that – once they have resolved to believe (in) something, they will often refuse (perhaps subconsciously) to allow anything to the contrary to take root within them EVEN if it is glaringly obvious that their assumptions are unfounded.

In regards to Saddam’s development of CBRN or elements thereof, I looked to the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), a serious and very respected academic journal written by some of the most educated and informed people around. It is hard to get a hold of without paying some serious cash, but sometimes public and university libraries stock it. I happen to be lucky in that respect because the MOD provides it for us. If this and similar topics are of interest to you, I would heartily recommend it.

http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20A...ortIraqWMD.htm also has some interesting related articles and information.

A good article on this can also be found on the US State Department’s website: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/threat.htm

The most recent report issued before the third Gulf War does not contain any hysterical or extraordinary claims. It merely concludes that over time, with the correct components, the Iraqi regime could develop a viable nuclear weapon for use beyond its borders. This is not news to the international military community.

And inlays the concern of many skeptics. They feel if there isn’t a ‘smoking gun’ then the concerns are unfounded and irrational. Are they though? Remember, security resolution 1441 does not say that there must be a smoking gun but rather evidence of CONTINUED TO DEVELOP. That is, he must only have tried not necessary succeeded. Just keep that in minds as you formulate your ideas. It is important to have a full grasp of what the resolution intended.

Over 10 years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was set up to monitor and restrict the development of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. That is how serious the concerns were of the International Community.

For the record, I don’t particularly put a lot of stock in the UN. It is all we have but it is a room of vipers filled with murders, dictators, et al. Not the kind of people you want dictating to you, especially largely democratic (but unperfected) countries like the US and UK.

Specifically, UNSCOM was tasked with investigating the development of CBRN weapons within Iraq, and Iraq made a commitment to co-operate fully with UNSCOM in this regard. They publicly claimed to have undertaken “full and final declaration” of their CBRN capabilities.

Despite these stated commitments, the reality on the ground in Iraq for UNSCOM personnel was very different. To begin with, the Iraqi authorities never made any declarations in relation to their CBRN capabilities. In addition, Saddam’s regime attempted to frustrate UNSCOM’s mandate in Iraq by denying its personnel access to suspect facilities.

The Iraqis also engaged in bureaucratic wrangling, concealment, deception and intimidation. It was only through the dogged determination of weapons inspectors that any progress was made. The progress made gave rise for grave concern in the west.

It is good to point out here that UNSCOM’s personnel were mostly from nations other than the US and UK. Granted there were a couple, in particular a former USMC intelligence officer.

In relation to chemical weapons, UNSCOM personnel felt they had probably neutralized only 40 per cent of Saddam’s estimated capabilities. Western intelligence estimates would still hold that stockpiles of nerve gas such as Sarin were at the disposal of the Iraqi military before the third Gulf War, but as of yet, hard evidence of Sarin hasn’t been discovered and there are many reasons for this. It is likely, but not necessarily so, that they have been hidden in underground bunkers, hastily destroyed, or consigned to other nations friendly with Iraq.

In relation to biological weapons, UNSCOM personnel believed that Saddam’s capabilities were only slightly retarded by their activities. This was due in part to the low-tech nature of such weapons, and the relative ease with which they can be resourced, manufactured, stored and concealed.

I personally know how to make Ricin out of the caster bean. It is approximately 200 times as potent as cyanide, which as you might imagine, it pretty frightening. It is a relatively simple (but extremely dangerous) process. One gallon of Ricin could potentially wipe out 10s of thousands of people. It’s the administration that is the difficult part. How would one do it? Spay it from helicopters or planes like when you dust crops? Put it in the public water system? Delivery comes in many forms, which is also part of the problem. Do you really need a ballistic missile to deploy CBRN? No. Of course you don’t.

UNSCOM’s findings in relation to Saddam’s nuclear weapons program were equally disturbing. Inspection teams sent to Iraq in the early 1990s destroyed a device known as a cyclotron. This is an apparatus used in the production of weapons-grade fissile material. In developing such a device, the Iraqi regime showed a high level of ingenuity and determination in their attempts to develop nuclear weapons. They spent millions of dollars to do this. So, if they were not “developing” weapons of mass destruction, what were they doing? Again, the burden was placed on their shoulders after the second Gulf War ended.

Inspection teams also uncovered evidence of active research into the manner in which home-produced nuclear weapons could be incorporated into domestically produced ballistic missiles.

Specifically, UNSCOM teams were concerned about modified R-11 (Scud B) missiles sold to the Iraqis by the former Soviet Union. Iraqi engineers had stripped down and re-built these Scud missiles, re-fabricating and enlarging component parts to create a weapon capable of a range of up to 650 km and with the ability to carry a large pay-load. Having test-fired one of these DIY “Al Hussein” missiles in 1987, the Iraqis had built six permanent missile sites by 1990.

Okay, now we’re talking serious problems. Do we need to wait for a smoking gun? Well, some people think so but if that is what they want they will have to realize that in order for the gun to smoke it must have been fired. At the point we are talking about someone having been hit by the bullet. On the grander scheme of things that means WMD having been used or sold to someone who planned to use it against the West. At what point do we take the steps necessary to protect ourselves? Must we really wait until we have been shot?

Allan? Just curious on your thoughts now at this point as I am sure you will try to find something wrong with my “rantings” here because everyone who reads this can surely tell that I have no idea what I am talking about. Just curious, you still think we are on the same level HeeMan?

Anyway, I digress.

All six were destroyed by allied air strikes during the second Gulf War (remember, there have been three). The Iraqis claimed in the mid-1990s to have unilaterally destroyed all of the remainder of these missiles. However, they failed to provide any proof they had done so.

UNSCOM’s concerns were for the remaining missiles and their “al Waleed” towed launchers - capable of being dispersed and concealed countrywide. The fear among UNSCOM personnel was that such weapons could be used to deliver a WMD payload against targets throughout the Middle East.

With a range of 650 km, an “Al Hussein” missile would put Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Iran and Kuwait within range of Saddam’s suspected arsenal of WMDs. The missiles would be notoriously unpredictable. In the absence of a guidance system or homing devices, they would be simply launched on a given bearing and elevation in the general direction of the “enemy”.

Irrespective of the various reports suggesting that there are no concerns, one needs only look at the past decade or so, in which Saddam’s regime has amply demonstrated that it is ready, willing and able to engage in the development and use of weapons of mass destruction.

A most worrying development that coincides with a recent IISS report is the allegation that Iraq has attempted to purchase strengthened aluminum tubes for use in weapons development. If this allegation is true, it implies that the Iraqis are attempting to employ a gas-enrichment technique to produce weapons-grade uranium. Now, that is heavy stuff.

This would suggest that their nuclear weapons program was advancing at an alarming pace. It isn’t logical to wait for definitive proof because Saddam may well have provided it himself – in ways too awful to contemplate.

I could write more, but I have things to do.

XerXes

[Rebelius]

you can't destroy mass, only re-distribute it over a larger area