[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by HNICPantitude

Baghdad was at one time a progressive region of the Middle East. Currently there is no sign of progression anywhere. It is run by a power hungry lunatic whoi is in his last moments of control and is desparate.

Do his people have more freedom than those in Qatar? How about the women in Saudi Arabia? Jordan? When do we over throw these regimes for the sake of democracy???

"Iraq under Saddam’s regime has become a land of hopelessness, sadness, and fear. A country where people are ethnically cleansed; prisoners are tortured in more than 300 prisons in Iraq. Rape is systematic . . . congenital malformation, birth defects, infertility, cancer, and various disorders are the results of Saddam’s gassing of his own people. . . the killing and torturing of husbands in front of their wives and children . . . Iraq under Saddam has become a hell and a museum of crimes."

Iraqi Safia Al Souhail, Advocacy Director of the International Alliance for Justice

Did he gas his own people? Were they Kurds? Were they enemy guerillas during the Iran-Iraq war?? Can you even BEGIN to answer any of these questions??

Do I believe our military is perfect and is only out to save the people?

Absolutely not. However, I do believe that, overall, as a country, the United States makes a very conscientious effort to remain as civil as one can in times of war. The reality of the situation is that no war is going to be a smooth operation performed with the surgical precision that opponents seem to believe is attainable in their eutopian visions.

Fine, and what I argued is that it is the American PEOPLE, whom the military works for as stated in the U.S. Constitution, are the reason for this. Our soldiers have proven in the past to be just as ruthless as anybody else, but it is the mores and rules of the American populous that keeps those occurences exceptional.

Do I believe we are going into Iraq, with the primary goal of liberating the country and establishing a democracy?

Yes and no. Yes, I believe we do indeed wish to establish a democratic (even remotely democratic) government. Do I believe it is to help the Iraqi people? Somewhat, perhaps. I do not believe we wish them further suffering.

Over 10 years of misguided sanctions argue otherwise.

However, that is absolutely not our goal. Our goal, as I have earlier stated, and will now reiterate is IMO to create a widespread pressure throughout the region which will motivate and encourage the people throughout the Middle East to rise up and force progression. Theocracy is NOT an answer, and these countries will never be able to function in the world to come, let alone the current world economy.

Do you not see at all how slightly elitist and arrogant it is to assume that the U.S. has the global cure for every other nation in the world...?

I don't like Saddam. I don't want him in power. Although I know Iraq isn't all the unsubstantiated things you say it is (running off a list of essays and boks you haven't read doesn't impress me), I too want life to improve there. But this goesback to my question: Why have we reacted in a completely contrary fashion in Red China? Why has the solution for China, AND Iran for the matter, been the "democratic market," as opposed to sanctions and war...?

It is critical that this region is stabilized and move forth with the rest of the world. Basic human rights, enhanced education, and international trade outside of oil will clearly set them on a path to a better life, which in turn, will provide stability throughout the region and give the U.S and other countries room to breathe and not worry about isolated terrorist cells and religious movements being funded by oil-rich governments.

Where is the "rest" of the world? Over 40 million AMERICANS have little or no health coverage, we have the highest child poverty rate out of ANY of the industrialized nations, and we have more people in prison than many of these horrible regimes you have mentioned. Are we truly worth emulating, or should they perhaps advance and develope on their OWN terms...? With an open market, transparency, and free information, do you think the Iraqi people will still choose Saddam...?

Here are some fun facts:

On the French investment: Certainly, the French have economic reasons to avoid this war, much like we have economic reasons to PERPETUATE this war, and see, that's where your problem lies. You hate France, so you can see their hypocrisy. But you could NEVER imagine the U.S. of A. EVER doing something out of economic interest.

AND, you have incorrectly stated that the U.S. has no economic interest in Iraq. Haliburton, which was then run by DICK CHENEY, sold oil drilling equipment to Iraq, and made millions. They did this THROUGH a French subsidiary of theirs. So you see, some of the investment you are citing against big, bad France has ALSO benefited American corporations.

Also, if my memory serves me correctly, Iraq is STILL one of the top 10 sources of American oil, and one reason we get more oil from places like Russia and Venezuela is that Iraq controls so much of their plenty. When we take out the Saddam regime, the largest untapped oil reserve in the world will be free for all (especially those who helped "liberate" it).



On German investment: Germany supported the war on terror in Afghanistan. Germany has repeatedly said they will continue to do so, but they don't see the connection with Iraq (with good reason). A big reason Germany has turned completely against war is the influence of the Green Party in their government. This Party opposes oil dependency, and likewise isn't in the pockets of the oil and automobile firms. It isn't ALL about the oil.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.

Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.

According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.

A free Iraq, with control of ALL its oil, would undoubtedly benefit Russia, still. Russia, as I have said, also gives us oil. Why not support war then?

The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.

Was the war in Afghanistan about an oil pipeline? If you say absolutely not, then you are a hypocrite, and you've sabotaged your own argument.

Russia’s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20]
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.

Again, Americans are invested in Iraq as well, and we likewise sold them some naughty stuff during that war. There isn't a corporate conspiracy against this war, no more than there is one in FAVOR of this war.