"It is a tragedy, but a lot fewer innocent Iraqis will die in an allied campaign than would die if Saddam stays in power."

Really? That's quite a atatement. How do you know?


"BTW, do you know how many innocent Iraqis Saddam killed this day 15 years ago? anyone?"

No how many??

Ben

What we are talking about is control of the oil fields and all the income from them. This is in fact trillions of dollars. Would these people be willing to risk the start of WWIII and the end of mankind, I do not know, but if you ask them you may not like what you hear.

Admin note, that must be the longest post ever! to appear on CH lol. It's just ridiculous!

Scrapper

"As we have stated before, Bush needed some catastrophe such as 9-11 to justify an endless war on multiple fronts. He needed it to provide cover for an oil grab."
You have got to be kidding me. Here is a picture of President Bush at a photo-op in a Florida school as he is being informed of the tragic events that happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Does he look like he's grateful for those events? Does he look grateful that he is going to have to give an order to shoot down American passenger planes?"

This photo was taken over 29 minutes after the attacks, and by the way it is well known now that this was nothing more than a photo opp, you need to do a little more research, he knew well in advance of this photo that the attacks had happened.

"I am being told that we suspect that Saddam has these weapons, we have no proof but we suspect this to be so.?
how much more do you need. Remember he is the one needs to account for them. He can?t even show where the missing WMDs are that we know he has."

So now he must prove a negative, not impossible but not probable, he must prove what he does not have??? makes sense LOL

"?He has no ties to 9/11 even though the administration tried for a time to make an unbelievably weak argument to the contrary, which in fact turned out to be laughable at best.?
but you think it?s ok for him to be the one who stages the next undeclared act of war on US soil?"

No I do not think it would be good that he staged the next undeclared act of war any more than I do not think it would be good that you staged the next undeclared war on US soil, or Beaver Cleaver for that matter, so what do you mean by this????????????????????????????????????????

And no there are no ties to 9/11 to Saddam, it is this excuse that there are ties that is quite worrisome to me, it is in fact a lie. This bothers me when this administration lies to make an excuse to start a war that could encompass the entire world. As a normal person I need to see proof and the UN resolutions that you have pasted (and thank you, so nice to read them again) is not proof of something that may or may not exist.

Snappa

All I can say is use your head man, does any of this make sense. If you want a war and think this would be exciting and fun, then you are one of many including most of the media. I for one do not think that war solves any problems, particularly when it is unprovoked. I wish for my family to live a little longer. So do you think it is ok for any country to attack any other that they perceive to be a threat. Who would then attack the other at this point. India, Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Peru, Where does it end. Or are we so very correct that no one can touch anything our Executive branch can do. Through the patriot act and the Homeland Security act, we have given up all individual rights, Bush becomes Caesar. The whole idea of this war is crazy and I hope that what I think is going on is not true. I hope that that over one billion Muslims do not take up arms and make the US an enemy and a country of immediate threat, because if they do then by our own doctrine that we are establishing, they have the right of Preemption and can now declare war on us by their own terms and can do so at any time. You need to use you head and know that you will be judged after this life for your choices and thoughts, as well as your actions.

LDVEE says: I find it ironic that with all the high-tech weaponary the phase of the moon is a prime consideration

Of course it is. WE have shit that lets us see when there is no light, the ragheads do not (OK, they do, but it is of inferior quality). There is no light on a new moon night....

I just read Jamesbr's excellent post concerning the background of oil and general economic interests as much of the real reason behind our relatively sudden need to destroy Saddam and "manage" the Iraqi oilfields. Working my way down the thread through Snapper's extremely detailed post, two hours later, I find a spot to say something. Darn. I didn't know you could save a file that big.

Virtually all wars have a strong economic reason for their creation. We may talk of racial feuds in Africa or religious ones in places like Ireland and the former Yugoslavia but it is the control of resources that prime the war pump and motivate the most avid supporters. The atrocities of Saddam are terrible but they are no greater than many other equally harsh regimes. However, Iraq sits upon a vast amount of untapped oil and our way of life depends on guaranteeing the continual flow of that product.

One of the reasons that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because we had cut off their supply of oil from mainland Asia. The roots of Nazism and German nationalism were in the draconic peace terms of WWI which destroyed any possibility of economic rebirth in the country. Going back to our own Civil War, it was not about slaves per se but about the emerging machine driven economy of the North against the labor intensive economy of the South. Go back farther to the Revolutionary War and it was independence from British control of tax revenue.

Jamesbr, I would agree that the primary basis to this upcoming war is economic but I would add that Israeli and Jewish American interests have played a major role in setting things into motion. Now that the dirty work is about to start and innocent people will die they have faded to the background. Don't kid yourself that it is only the resource companies and their political friends that want this war. Removal of Saddam will further Israeli territorial expansion while also maintaining the status quo of providing a source of low paid labor to be exploited and then discarded as the need calls for.

Regardless of the outcome of all this, our country will be despised by the entire Islamic world along with most of the under priveledged throughout the world. I lived in a poor Latin country in the 70s and can remember the graffiti everywhere about the CIA and US imperialism in Vietnam. The only difference between then and now is that these people are no longer incapable of reaching us with their hatred. Bush will get his oil, Sharon and company will continue murdering the innocent so as to steal what little land they have left, and the rest of Europe will bitch but will be forced to come along because of their own economic needs. And we will face more 9/11s, an ever increasing reduction of our personal liberties, and future BS about why we now need to look hard at the governments of other evil contries. Like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and anyone else who has something we need.

Tight_Fit

Great post and I could not agree with you more, although I think with the advent of Enron and other Bush and Company debacles, I simply do not trust this war and possible insuing wrath as destiny, it is more greed than anything. I think what really upsets me as well as most is that this country was founded on the idea of establishishing a place of freedom as a refuge from Tyranny. It is that tyranny could be here now is what is so upsetting. We can go no further west as we have run out of real estate. So we look to the heavens, for many reasons.

I guess the JEWS are behind everything. That certainly makes this stuff easier to understand.

Tight fit, REGARDLESS of what we do or do not do in Iraq, the ragheads and other wogs will continue to hate us. They have no choice. Our continued existence, our vast wealth, our freedoms, all of this is an abomination in their eyes, and, worse, an offense against Allah. The towelheads are mired in hopeless poverty, while we, satanists all, are rich. Surely we have made a pact with the devil and must therefore be destroyed.
We cannot reason with these people, concessions to them will not work, appeasing them will not work, nothing will. Only the credible threat of brute force.

Powerslave

I think what Tight_fit is talking about is Zionism. That the Jewish state can do no wrong according to them in the eyes of god including murder. If someone came to Alabama and said "ok this is now the new nation of whatever state, and all other people get out or will be considered second class persons, I think that not only the people of Alabama, or what ever place would be upset along with all others in every state. Hatred would insue and fighting would begin. In the hope or excuse, the new nation would control more land to try to control the fighting and terrorism or whatever happened after this. The world of Islam feels this way and with every drop of blood that is shed they see the US as a co conspirator in this story. This is a simple explantation and both sides have atrocities to speak of but with over one billion people as your enemy you would indeed need to be brutal. To say that a state can do no wrong and to let them do anything they wish without any retribution is quite scary to most. I am not taking sides here but there are in fact two sides to every story.

I feel a great sigh of relief for jamesbr and tight fit to bring some intelligence(no pun intended) back to this thread. Coupla of guys with brains. Thanks powerslave too for his opinions. I do not mind humor and nonsense in this thread AT ALL.

But when some retard posts nonsense AS truth, I don't know whether to laugh or what. And the retard tries to sound intelligent by ending his post with things like "someday you'll understand that." LOL.

And that photo of Bush responding to news of 9/11, jamesbr has already explained it better than I do. But what frigging President on earth would look 'grateful' at the news of a disaster in front of a photographer?

As Jamesbr has already pointed out twice, use your friggin head Snappa, and as I have said before, stop being Ari Fleisher's retarded servant. They're gonna use the Patriot Act on you Snappa. We're watching you!

DJ and Jamesbr1961, you guys are both made some great points, and with that I need to jump the fence with my opinion on the use of military force in Iraq. Saddam hasn't done shit in the past twelve years as far as aggression towards other counties, and in Iraq Saddam has only killed a couple women for "crimes of dishonor", but in Texas this week they just celebrated fry'n #300 since 1980 or something like that.

The US puts sanctions on Iraq as a showing of authority, but then turns cheek and buys Iraqi oil from middlemen in Sudan. And your right about Bush posing for the camera, the best part of that picture is the fact his mouth wasn't moving like when he was trying to tell us that Saddam Hussein is connected to Al Queda because Mohammed's fourth cousin's piano teacher used to work in a grocery store in Iraq (ok, so I can't remember the exact bullshit that dribbled out of his mouth), I'm sure only Rush believed that one though.

Jamesbr1961, mentioned countries selling their votes. There is a lot more than Turkey on that note, as I'm sure most of you know. I'm sure the State Department was out in full force threatening the following swing votes on the UN Security Counsel: Mexico, Chile, Angola, Cameroon, Guinea and Pakistan that they need to take the US position or be treated like Yemen was in 1990. Any and all of those countries that don't sell themselves out will be my new favorite country(lucky them). I keep seeing more and more reports of how the Inspection Team(witch is supposed to neutral and objective) is filled with people who have an "agenda".

Israel. Before I've said I think it's our responsibility to look after Israel, but now after how they reacted to that bus bombing last week I think they need a kick in the skull (figuratively speaking of course). They keep fighting violence towards innocents with violence towards innocents and it's not helping them.

Now I think Bush needs to step-down his position on Saddam to a containment position with heavy pressure from the UN, and focus on bigger fish. I do feel North Korea needs to be dealt with. The way Bush should deal with North Korea is by going and sitting behind that big desk and not touch anything. He needs to have Colon and Condoleeza to work on this issue. I think Colon looks pretty good right now. He gets stuck doing all his bosses dirty work at the UN and has to handle all of the administration's diplomacy(granted that is his job,but...). I wonder what issue he was pushing more a week and a half ago while in China, Iraq or Korea?

Oh yeah, The Patriot Act. You're probably right, they are watch'n me those bastards. Is that why I get bounced into secondary every time I cross the border?

-snapper-

Jamesbr1961,

"What we are talking about is control of the oil fields and all the income from them"

We are not going to see the trillions of dollars, just like we don't get the revenue for oil sold in Saudi, Iran, Russia.

We buy the oil and I don't think we are going to ever own the Iraq oil fields whether Suddam or some other dictator or democratic government is running the place,

Your analyst of the oil industry and our dependents on foreign oil seems very accurate, but your conclusion that we will receive the revenue from the sale of Iraq oil is flawed.
Why don't we just take over the Mexican oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico?
Hell, lets go after Venezuela and that communist Chavez. I am sure the country would be more than willing to then let us have the revenue from selling their oil.

Again, the part of your argument that we are going to benefit from Iraq's oil doesn't seem logical to me. Please explain specifically how we will receive the revenue from the sale of Iraq oil.
Jamesbr1961,

"What we are talking about is control of the oil fields and all the income from them"

We are not going to see the trillions of dollars, just like we don't get the revenue for oil sold in Saudi, Iran, Russia.

We buy the oil and I don't think we are going to ever own the Iraq oil fields wether Suddam or some other dictator or democratic government is running the place,

Your analyst of the oil industry and our dependents on forgien oil seems very accurate, but your conclusion that we will receive the revenue from the sale of Iraq oil is flawed. Why don't we just take over the Mexican oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico. Hell, lets go after Venezuela and that communist Chavez. I am sure the country would be more tham willing to then let us have the revenue from selling their oil.

Again, the part of your arguement that we are going to benefit from Iraq's oil doesn't seem logical to me. Please explain specifically how we will receive the revenue from the sale of Iraq oil.

Ben

Well I suppose that what I am saying is that and Bush has recently stated that Iraq is only a stepping stone, that this will perhaps become a new wave of US imperialism. I hope I am wrong. If we control the oil fields, even through a puppet dictator, then concessions will go to the administration's buddies. Iraq was in fact created by Great Britain and the boundries of the country were drawn in fact aroung the oil fields, which is why the counrty is so fragmented now with shiites to the south and Kurds to the north. Many people feel like this could very well be a restructuring of the assets like the British did years ago.

Yes you are right that companies like Halliburton and other oil service companies will probably get concessions, as they do in Saudi and most of the oil producing arab countries.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but these oil field construction and service companies do not receive the revenue from the sale of oil and although significant revenue will be probably be generated to these American companies its is just pennies from each barrel of oil that is sold.

Certainly it doesn't equate to the trillions of dollars that will generated from the sale of Iraq oil. Again, the government of Iraq will receive the revenue from the sale of oil no matter what type of government is running the country.

I guess what i am saying is that to me there is no credence to the theory that invading Iraq is all about oil.

Ben

What some people are talking about now is that they wish to increase the output of the Iraqi oil fields and delivery sysems to rival the volumes of Saudi Arabia. This could be done over anywhere from 5 to 10 years and some estimate the costs of up to 200 billion.

"Again, the government of Iraq will receive the revenue from the sale of oil no matter what type of government is running the country."

Well if the country becomes a US "colony" then all bets are off as to who gets the income. You are assuming that this situation will not be any different than most we have seen before. If the US controls the country, they control the reserves, the hardware and everything that goes with it. With dwindling output now world wide, anyone that controls oil and gas reserves to this magnitude will weild tremendous power any way that you look at it. If you do not agree with this as just a possibility, then I would say we would have to agree to disagree.

J

I agree that it is a possibility, but controlling a foreign countries oil production goes against the way we have been operating in foreign countries for the past seventy years.

The Mexican government kicked out all the U.S. oil companies and nationalized their oil business in (I think) the thirties because the U.S. oil companies did own the oil and only paid the Mexican government a royalty like a farmer or rancher in the U.S. receives.

The U.S. oil companies have since worked in foreign countries including Mexico more as contractors and in some cases a minority interest in a foreign oil company where the U.S. company puts up the capital for the drilling and completion of the wells including pipelines, etc. and then gets there money back plus fees for their expertise and in some cases part of the on going profits.

Every deal is different, but I can't think of a single time that the U.S. government has played a ownership or equity position in these foreign deals,

Even in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico(U.S part) the U.S. government is a passive player and gets it share of the royalty money but shares none of the profits that go to the oil companies, except for the corporate taxes the oil companies pay.

The last time the US directly built something or participated in a foreign venture, as a profit center? The Panama Canal is the last one that comes to mind.

Whao! Time out fellas. Coupla of you are getting too close to the truth. Some things are better left unsaid.

Ben

I think we are talking about two different things here. I am talking about Exxon-Mobile going into Iraq with a concession to rework or to develope, and as a result gets say a 15% carry etc. I was never saying that the US government would get paid, but the current administration does represent a good part of the industry now anyway. It is as it has always been, many of our representatives in Congress have been bought and paid for by the special interest groups and lobbies including energy, everyone with their hand out with the right friends in high places gets a little cheese. So now it comes down to the question of: do I think our president would go to war to benefit these corporations and others, my answer is Hell yes.

Where's milky and his tv/ts act?

LOL. America is number one(waving flag) go Bush! Saddam is evil, axis of evil lol.

On another note, we should take out Chavez that piece of shit. The Venezuelans chicks are hot.

Where's milky...

Ironically, he's reminiscing over the thoughts of CoolHandLuke.

-retired-

hey Dickjohson

isn't it true that we put in Chavez, I can't remember but I am for it, for the sake of the hot women. Well after reading this site I think it will be impossible for me not to plan a trip to BA now, damn, these girls look as good as the Russians, what a deal

I am taking a russian to Jamaica for 2 weeks at the first of the month, so it would be in say june or so

Chavez was elected as President of Venezuela in 1998 when Clinton was President.

Chavez is a communist in socialist clothing that basically campaigned on the basis of helping the poor and taxing the rich. Very close buddy with Fidel Castro. He is a very corrupt guy who probably would identify and receive support from the Clinton administration.

Please no one suggest Bush had anything to do with this extremist.

Jamesbr,

I think your case of the U.S going into Iraq for the oil is getting weaker as we post. The concessions to the big oil companies will be significant, but hardly that important compared to the worldwide oil reserves and the worldwide revenues that these oil companies receive from the middle east,South America, etc.

Again most of the revenue will go to the Iraq government, whoever is in power.

I am not sure the reasons that Bush and his cronies profess are justfied, but I really believe that Bush thinks we need to get rid of this Iraq regime because they are a threat to us and our allies.

Mr Jamebr I welcome you to the board and extend my usual invitation to all newcomers to meet over a brew at a whore bar in the zona. We can discuss these deep issues and of course whores.

You presented some very good info. But in my opinion your partisanship is thinly veiled. Just come out and say you hate George Bush. Its OK, lots of us do for different reasons. But I feel that most people who are against kicking the shit out of Saddam are mostly against it because they are anti-Bush.

I did not hear much complaint when Clinton was bombing the shit out of Iraq, Kosovo, Sudan, Afganistan, without any explicit approval from the UN( He was smart to not ask for approval unlike Bush). But now people come out of the woodwork with a million reasons, many of them valid, not to attack Iraq. But they almost always end blowing their argument, IMHO, by concluding how terrible Bush is. So much for impartial observation.

I happen to agree with Ben that while this may be about oil, it is not about setting up Iraq as a colony. Anybody who believes that has been been reading too much Chomsky.

And finally, I have come to agree with Kendricks. If its going to happen, let it happen. When are we going to light the fuckers up?

Flame Away

Batsterinhisthermalprotectionsuitfueledbybeer

Batster, not everyone who is against the war hates Bush or this country. Most of them, yes, and that's what makes taking an anti war side difficult. It's hard to ignore than a sizeable % of the protesters just can't believe the 60s ever ended or that the Democrats are no longer in office. That's why I am happy when I see people voicing their opinions who are not "long haired hippie speed freaks" or someone who sounds like a programed robot straight out of the old SDS crowd. Hey, where's Patty Hearst when the world needs her.

Ben, I don't think that the oil issue is that XYZ Company is now going to control the oil revenues although most everyone admits that part of the reason why France & Friends are so dead set against all this is due to their own close economic ties with the current regime. And with a US control it is obvious that US companies will get first shot with any recontruction.

I think the real issue is a long term one. Sort of the type that Kissinger and the guy Carter had (name started with a B)used to promote. Playing Monopoly on a global level with entire countries or regions as pieces with little regard to their actual inhabitants. The entire world economy depends on the open flow of certain materials. Saddam in particular and Islamic fundamentalism in general threaten this both short and long term. Hence, they need to go and it's kind of hard to argue with that from a selfish point of view in my nice home with plenty of food in the fridge, an SUV in the garage, and most of the other conveniences we all enjoy. It's just that it is getting harder and harder to keep the barbarians from getting through the gates. And you can't nuke everyone you don't like anymore because some of the fuckers are going to survive and are coming to your home town with revenge in their beedy eyes.

Jamesbr, thanks for spot about Zionism. It's always risky these days to say anything critical about certain groups for fear of instant condemnation. Zionism IS racism, and always has been, and the widespread support that so many US jews give blanc carte to whatever the current government is in Israeli (the names change but the guns stay the same) only undercuts the image of tolerance and liberalism that is so carefully (money buys all) cultivated by many media controllers in this country.

Few of us have much sympathy for the seemingly eternal conflicts between Hindus and Muslems nor the equally stupid violence between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. One of the great strengths of our country is not only freedom of speech but the separation of state and church.

Anyway, any bets when Bush will attack #1, and how long the war will last #2? And will the general populace of Baghdad flock to the streets waving US flags #3? I'm betting by the end of the month or the start of the next for weather reasons. The shooting part of the war will be over in days and everyone will be amazed at how quickly it all happened. And the people of Iraq will smile at the US soldiers. At least for the first few months and then things will start to unravel.

I am a Vietnam vet and protested the war when I returned with the Vietnam Vets Against the War.

We were long haired hippies but did not take speed. And there was no reason in hell to be in Vietnam, what to speak of losing there.

I'm not a Bush fan, hell they are all republicrats anyway IMHO. However, I do think in this case we should flatten Iraq like an IHOP
pankake and sort it out later.

All power diverted to the defletor shields.

Bush will attack #1

Within weeks

and how long the war will last #2

The combat will last about 10 days but we will probably be stationed there for the rest of our lives

And will the general populace of Baghdad flock to the streets waving US flags #3

Only when we hand them money , nobody likes whiteys. They are the devil

Milktuff

Ben

Well once again I would say that we will agree to disagree on the control of the second largest oil reserves in the Mideast. There is not doubt the control of this would be a huge prize for the world elite that now control Bush and his people. Time will tell but I have not doubt in my mind that this is imperialism pure and simple.

Batster

I voted for Bush and I hated Clinton and I have been a Republican all my life. I was against the war in Kosovo, and I think that the fight in Somalia was an idiodic move. We are the police of the world and cannot and do not wish to protect our own borders. It is rather simplistic to state that all anti war people are anti Bush, or anti American. It is like years ago if someone said something you did not agree with, they are communist. The people that are agaist the war are interested in protecting their families and think that a future with a third world war would not make the world such a great place.

Being agaist the war has nothing to do with hating or liking Bush. I do not support someone simply because I voted for them or because I am a Republican or what ever. I choose to think for myself. Saddam is not a threat to the US or its neighbors. If he was a threat then why are none of his neighbors for this war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, we would be better served to bomb the shit out of Saudi Arabia, SA is much more a threat to us that Iraq. Iran is more a threat to us. Korea has stated that they are ready for a nuclear war with us, just say the word they say. So are we going after someone that is a threat, or are we going after an ememy that we simply think that we can easily beat? Attacking Korea would bring pretty dire consequences, it will be interesting to see if Korea will use the war in Iraq as a chance to attack the south, some people think that this is a real possibility. Our 37,000 troops there would be slaughtered by the 500,000 + NK troops crossing the border to South Korea.

No, I am not a Bush hater, I am just smart enough to see that this war will make the US a much more dangerous place. The risks far outweigh the benefits to the oil companies. The idea that Saddam has these weapons and would give them to someone else is not credible. If the same statement was made about North Korea, Iran, or even Saudi Arabia (15 of the 19 hijackers were from SA), then my attitude would be different. Just picking a boogy man that we in fact created to begin with and picking a fight simply because we think we can win is ludicrous. If some of you are so blood thirsty for a comflict that could be the start of the next world war, at least lets make it an enemy that is worth going after.

Lastly,

If we are in fact going to start a war because someone could be a threat, or may become a threat sometime in the future, without UN approval etc, then this does in fact open the door for everone to attack anyone at any time for any reason. North and South Korea, China and Taiwan, just about any cental African nation, hell we can name dozens of possibilies. So now we go from being the anchor of peace in the world to the country that shows the world that preemtion is ok just flame away at anyone you think could at sometime in the future be a threat to you, or to us or to them or to whoever. Sorry but it is just not logical to make this guy the newest boogy man to pick on when there are so many others that are in fact a threat to the US

Dick Johnson has been hit by an unseen car and is now comatose.

prayers,
-DJ's friend

Dj's friend

I hope this is a joke.
he is a friend of mine and a great guy
Are you Pecs ? If so Call me and let me know what happened please!!!!

Where is he at ?
Email me if you want at luvprgirls@aol.com

My prayers are with him he is a good guy
Milkverysad

hey what is up, is this a joke, what is going on???????????

The fact that was posted in this section tells me it's a joke. Hopefully I'm assuming correctly.

But Snappy whens the last time you assumed something correctly ?
And are you going to the next damm fiesta ??

Milka

Jamesbr,

I am sorry if I misunderstood the tone of your past posts. I should not make assumptions. I saw in your posts where you said something to the effect that “Bush needed a catastrophe like 9-11 to justify and endless war and give him a pretext to grab the oilfields.” Somewhere else you said something like, “Bush is an American Caesar and will give the oil concessions to his buddies” and somewhere else you said something about “Bush and Enron” and other corporate scandals. Those are all tired mantras I hear from the anti-Bush crowd. IMHO MORE of the anti-war protesters are motivated by their political opinions (left of spectrum anti-bush) than by valid arguments, so I am very skeptical of the anti war crowd. I lumped you in that group and probably should not have. Sorry. From your reasoned comments it is obvious that you are not a run of the mill protester.

Unlike you, I did not vote for Bush. I did not like his father and I did not like him. Some of his ideas (faith based initiatives etc) scare me. But since 9/11 I have been with him all the way on the question of this war. I think he is taking his responsibility very seriously.
He and Tony Blair are placing their political careers on the line for something they believe in. That takes balls. Bush is banking on changing the entire political dynamic of the Middle East. If it works he will win big. If it does not, his presidency is one term, or even less.

Maybe he should do what Clinton did and pass the problem on to a democrat in 2004. A democrat can bomb the shit out of whatever country they want and we wont hear a peep from the anti-war crowd. Lets elect Hillary to clean up this mess. She can Nuke France and Sheryl Crowe and Jeannine Garaffolo and the rest of the antiwar crowd will cum in their panties. But the fact is that SOMEONE is going to have to clean up the mess. We have been burying our head in the sand for too long. Sometimes these problems can’t be fixed with diplomacy. Sometimes force is the only answer.

You mention that Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia pose more of a threat to the US than Saddam. I don’t disagree with you. I would add to the list, Syria and Libya. But how exactly are you going to deal with them? Diplomacy with rogue states ruled by irrational leaders will not work under the current geo-political dynamic. See where Carters diplomatic genius got us with Korea. They agreed to not pursue WMD in exchange for oil and food. Surprise surprise. Look what they have now. A-bombs. Now how are you going to handle that? And we see how well 12 years of diplomacy has worked in Iraq. I contend that diplomacy will not protect us from these dangers.

Do you think the UN would ever justify any military action against any of the states that you say pose a greater threat to the US? Not in your lifetime. They wont even go after Iraq. They have passed 16 resolutions that they have failed to enforce. He has been in constant violation of the cease-fire agreement that allowed him to stay in power. So if the UN will not help with these dangerous states, and they wont, what do you do? I contend that Bush will go after them alone one by one. And Iraq is first.

So why go after Iraq? Maybe it is the easiest apple to pick off the tree. And what is necessarily wrong with that? There is at least some pretext to do it. There is at least some basis under international law for doing so. It seems like a lot of the antiwar crowd does not understand the meaning of unilateral, because the US is not alone on this. In contrast, whom do you think will volunteer to help with Korea? So why not take down Saddam as the first step in a campaign to change the geopolitical dynamic.

Lets look at this. Assume that we take out Saddam and get some type of self-government going in Iraq. What happens in Iran? I don’t know if any of you have been following the so-called “Soccer Riots” in Iran. Up to a million people at a time are protesting against the ayatollahs. They had a 10% voter turn out in Tehran last week for local elections. The people abstained as a form of protest. The people want closer ties to the west and they want a more secular society. Iran is on the brink of revolution. A newly liberated Iraq, with an American army sitting on the border, and a little support from the state department could cause the Ayatollahs house of cards to collapse.

Change the regimes in Iraq and Iran and you just went way down the path to changing the entire political dynamic of the region. Now do you not suppose that Saudi Arabia with a newly liberated and secular Iraq and Iran as neighbors would be more susceptible to diplomatic pressure to crack down on the Wahabi extremism that is at the root of 9/11?

Syria confronted with the same situation, and with the recent show of American force in mind, will also be more inclined to accept diplomatic pressure to stop supporting terrorism. Sometimes diplomacy needs the threat of force to succeed. And sometimes that force needs to be demonstrated so that recalcitrant parties know it not an empty threat.

The only way that we are going to confront the countries that pose a threat to us is by changing the entire balance of power. Under the current geo-political scheme we cannot depend on groups like the UN or NATO to protect us. Many members of the UN could give a rat’s ass about our safety. Many countries interests are in opposition to ours. The principal reason that the Frogs and Russkies want to avert war in Iraq (beside protecting their economic interests) is that they know that a successful prosecution of the war will completely change the balance of power and render them even more irrelevant than they already are. They don’t care if we have a dozen 9/11’s. I think it is obvious after the UN antics of the last few weeks that we are going to have to protect ourselves. And to do so we are going to have to use force.

George Bush is playing a very serious game. For all of our sakes I hope that it works. But I think his grand gamble beats the alternative of doing nothing. We know what doing nothing brings. Depending on the UN to ensure our security and eradicate the threat to us is just as good as doing nothing. Bush realizes we have to act alone. All the talk about allies is for show.

Does that make us the world’s Sheriff? Maybe. But not acting in these situations leaves a vacuum of power. And in that vacuum of power all the punks run wild. Sometimes a neighborhood needs a sheriff to keep the punks in line. Fifteen years ago, the Russians kept their punks in line and we kept our punks in line. Russia cant do shit any more. That leaves us to do it all. It’s a dangerous world we live in and it will not get better waiting for the UN. I am not a very intelligent man like most of you. Kendricks gleefully reminds me of my low IQ. But I am good at what I do. I have been successful by taking action when opportunity presents itself. And my gut feeling is Bush is on the right track by pushing for action.

I hope this crazy crapshoot of his works out (not that I see any other solution). I am at peace with myself, but I would prefer to have some more time to hang out in the Zona before we all go up in a Mushroom cloud. After all, I still have not met Kendricks and I have yet to screw one of Ben’s trifecta.

Batsterrecheckinghisflameprotectionsuit

I am amazed at the incompetence of the Bush Administration. I hope they run the war better than they are running the UN vote. Everytime Rumsfeld opens his mouth, we lose a couple of votes.

Batster,

Man you are the man.

What a great post.

I would like to introduce you to the trifeta and you choose your flavor.

Fuck the French and all their products.

I have fucked the French ;) It was not bad...

Innocent,

have a nice trip to the far east. Lucky Bastard. I have fucked french also. Fucking is about all they are good for.

Ben,

Oh man oh man would that be great. Now with you pull could you not arrange for two primas at once. LOL

batsteralwaysenviousofBen

Innocent,

have a nice trip to the far east. Lucky Bastard. I have fucked french also. Fucking is about all they are good for.

Ben,

Oh man oh man would that be great. Now with you pull could you not arrange for two primas at once. LOL

batsteralwaysenviousofBen

I was working with a bunch of 16 year old french kids and ...

Good reply Batster. I like your reverse domino theory regarding Iran and Saudia Arabia although I don't see it working in the second case. Iran might very well swing back to a pro Western state if we were in Iraq and played serious hardball with the religious wackos next door. Ever since the hostage situation under Carter I have never liked guys with dark beards and beedy eyes who beat their chests. At some point though Russia would have to step in for its own nationalist and economic interests in the region.

There are all sorts of wanna be oil and natural gas pipelines from the former soviet states with unpronouncable names to "safe" depots. Even James Bond got into the action several movies back. I think Iran is suppose to be the best route to the sea but only under a friendly regime.

You're right about what would happen if a Democrat was doing what Bush proposes. That's the sad thing about most of the anti war crowd and why I feel so isolated at times. 99% of them don't give a fuck about the people of Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. I remember reading that at the last election conventions that the number of limos arriving and departing for the Demo one was nearly double the number for the Repub one. Heaven forbit if one of them actually had to come in real contact with the people that they "feel" for.

Batster1
I hardly have time to read or make posts now, but after reading your Middle East theories, I have decided that Bush should sign you up to persuade the rest of the UN and half of the US of the the US government's goals. You did a better job of persuading me, a peacenik, than the government's spin doctors. Why don't you do a little editing and send that to some publications and see if they will publish it.

Nayaritwhoisgladtocallyoumyfriend.

Batster:

It seems that your prescription for solving the world's problems is by the US becoming the world's biggest terrorist. Start taking out enemy nations one by one.

Gee, Saddam doesn't even have to have weapons of mass destruction for your strategy to work, just make an example of him to the other nations.

Hitler would have liked your methods.

Batster1,

Very well thought out piece.

I agree with your central point, and in this cynical world of ours your hypothesis is probably quite close to the truth. I'm also anti-Bush and pro-war in this case. I figure that the freedom Iraqi people will get as a by product of the takeover,is reason enough to go in. If U.S. troops kill 100 000, innocents (a horrible, mind numbing possibility), I do not think that at the end of the day the suffering will be any greater than if Hussein were to stay in power. The important difference will be that Iraqis get a shot at making a better life for themselves in the aftermath of an invasion.

If I may, I'd like to make two comments on what you've written. First, I'd like to see the moniker of 'World's Policeman' or 'Sherrif' rejected out of hand. It plays into the moral spin Bush's people have tried to put on this. A policeman enforces laws, and the U.S. has demonstrated many times that on the international scene, laws mean nothing. I am not singling America out, all countries do this - but being the biggest kid on the block the U.S. naturally gets the most attention. The truth is that the U.S. abides by and enforces the laws that promote its interests, and ignores those that don't.

Secondly, though this gambit could re-order things in the U.S.'s favour and solidify your country's dominant position in the world - it will do nothing to make the planet a better place in the long run. Relationships built on force eventually bring grief to the more powerful. It is human nature for the weaker to resent the more powerful, no matter what kind of advantages the relationship may have brought. Mind you, I don't pretend to know of a better way. Presently, the U.S. makes up less than 7% of the world population and controls more than half the wealth according to an article I read just yesterday. Naturally, that kind of distribution of wealth gives the U.S. great power and creates the resentment I just mentioned. Would things be better if the wealth and power were more evenly distributed according to population? I doubt it.

Explorer,

I really don't want to get on YOUR bad side cuz I love your Russia reports, but....I think you're being a bit hard on Batster. I didn't read anything in Batster's piece that suggested he was happy with the way things are done in the world. I got more sense that he's a fella who recognizes the facts of International competition, and is commenting on them.

Terrorist, policeman, crusader, infinte justice - none of those labels make a worthwhile contribution to understanding the international scene. Noam Chomsky has branded the U.S. as exactly that - a terrorist nation, and if you don't consider the context of his arguments you might even find them pretty convincing. I mean, what was Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Though it's old, and often referred to clumsily, I think Niccolo's The Prince is still the most relevant handbook for deciphering international relations.

Machiavelli was the author of "the Prince" that I read in college.

Oops sorry, I didn't realize his first name was Niccolo.

benwhosometimesistohastyinhisposts

LuckyJackson,

Dont worry. Explorer does not get under my skin. He is one of the funniest posters on the board. Sometimes by design and sometimes not by design. But the beauty is he never gets in flame wars.

I do think that he needs help in determining what to do with non-professional ladies that hit on him in the border line and he also needs help with reality vis a vis Saddam. LOL. I cant believe that any one still believes that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction. I make a prediction, and I hope I am right or I will never hear the end of it from Explorer and the others. Within the next 6 months somebody is going to find WMD in Iraq or with clear connection to Iraq.

I am afraid that Explorer is right though that we may become a terrorist state( at least in the eyes of others)but unfortunately, Collective Security schemes are probably not going to work in the current political environment. So should we just wait around for the next Islamic Sucker Punch? No, we will have to take unilateral action.

I agree with your comments on the world hating us. But I dont see any good solutions to the current mess. I just don't think we can sit around and see what happens. But I do seriously worry about how action could spin out of control.

I also agree with your comments on "liberating Iraq" Nobody ever asks what the Iraqis want. Call me naive if you want, but my guess is that the majority want Saddam out and just hope to survive the bombing. Pretty shitty deal when you have to kill a bunch of people to give the rest some freedom.

Tightfit,

I know there are alot of sincere anti-war folks out there. I think there are alot of them on the board. And I do understand and respect, and even agree with, some of the arguments. I just dont agree with all of them. Its easy for me to say becuase I am not in the military and my ass is not on the line. But sometimes I think force is the only solution. I just hope we all survive long enough for at least one more trip to the Zona. LOL

batsterwhosleptinhisflameretardantsuit