If the U.S went to war with Iraq because of oil then it has been terribly unsuccessful. Iraq is frequently producing less oil than it did under the
oil for food programme. Every now and again production rises then the Iraqi Resistance thinks that a good way to resist the occupation is to blow up
several sections of Iraq's many miles of pipelines.
Add the cost of occupation, the human lives (only ours truly count that much in media and therefore politics of course) makes Iraqi oil is some of the
most expensive in the world.
We should have just lifted the sanctions when it became clear to everyone (accept the public) that Iraq didn't have WMD's.
However Saddam was anti Israeli, pro westernisation of the Arab world (that if you do your history was what the Ba'th party was set up to do), and
still believed that Kuwait belonged to his country (which it had for thousands of years till the British colonial occupation of the 1920's).
Iraq was also a politically acceptable country to bomb. Not completely of course but as far as a place where contracts could be handed out to the
likes of Halliburton and other defence companies that support both Americas political parties; it was pretty high on the list.
Ultimately though I’m sure if Saddam had agreed to kiss Israel's ass, and not support Palestinian terrorist and also victims, then we would have
put a lot of our worries about putting him behind us and not worry about putting him and his country in a powerful position again.
I think we left Saddam in power after 1991 hoping he would come round to that way of thinking. After all he kept his country together, was against
Muslim fundamentalism (that’s why many people got killed, usually it wasn’t for western ideals like democracy but rather a more fundamentalist
Despite building over 60 palaces, Saddam had before the first gulf war presided over massive state spending on most of his people, to the point (where
before 1991) over 90% of Iraqis were literate, and many enjoyed a first world health and education system. In short Saddam was very much like someone
we would of hand picked to rule Iraq. But he did have his anti Israeli flaws, and attitude problem towards Kuwait. Therefore the feeling was that as
long as he was in power sanctions could not be lifted.
Western foreign policy rarely has anything to do with human rights. For starters there are many weapons we would not be using, and many
more we would not be supplying to the world if the reverse was true. In any case it is quite possible that our war and its consequences have killed,
or at least will kill more people than Saddam did for political oppression during his 30 years of power. That's 350,000 according to the pentagon
last time I checked (will no doubt be on the high end as well).
Occupation is a very bloody type of warfare (in case you haven't noticed). And (at least historically) progress in war has had more to do with ending
life, than saving it (that's what military training and weapons are mostly for).
because without this war on Iraq we would be in a better position to do something about Iran, and therefore help Israel out that
way. The DU we have used against Iraqis has a half life of 4.2 billion years (that's because it's not that radioactive). The truth is that it does
release Alpha and Beta particles, and though normally quite harmless, the truth is that when the rounds in a shell are vaporized these metals
particles can release radiation into the body at point blank range against whatever tissue or cell.
American troops have no right to claim compensation for injuries received during combat. However the U.S military does look after their kids and
families anyway (although I heard a vocal few have learnt differently). It's the Iraqis I’m more concerned about, those in the years to come as
well as today.
As for the disputes over how bad DU is, I one for compare it to the tobacco companies trying to pass the compensation buck to next guy in charge by
denying smoking was bad for you as recently as the 1990’s.
Americans are nice, but you’ve a got a system that will happily send you to die with a lie in your head. One that is too afraid to be frank and
honest about what its foreign policy motives are, because it knows it’s not in the interests of what the majority of people would want.
You have a system that has yet to limit the impact of big business on election spending (and hence rotten peoples election chances). And so long as
the majority of people get their news from sources with few owners, then it seems the majority of those people will be under a wicked spell.
Take at look at the problem that just News International Presents www.ketupa.net...
This is controlled by Rupert Murdoch. At the time of the Iraq war all 172 newspapers he controlled world wide (through his majority share in News
International) all 172 supported the war in Iraq.
In Britain the Prime Minister won’t even make public what he has been discussing with him at Downing Street:
Nor will the ruling Labour Party change its European policy without consulting him:
And remember America you (like us) are (to all practical purposes) a two party state. Democrats and Republicans have the same “core”
“problems” (perhaps not such a problem if your one of their senior figures though).
Friends of Israel has shares in News International, and other such companies this is how real foreign policy is seeded. So too does China; wonder why
all those good reasons for not trading with them have gone quite.
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]