-1. How did Iraq threaten the United States to cause us to go there under the guise of the “war on terror”? -

Why did we send our troops to Europe and North Africa in the 1940’s when Japan was the one who attacked us at Pearl Harbor??

Going to your point… Iraq already had ties to terrorists. Iraq had already proven to be a menace to its neighbors. Iraq had already proven that it had WMD program and would ramp it back up once the inspectors left and the sanctions were lifted (which is what Germany, France and Russia were trying to do – lift the sanctions). Documents obtained after the fall of Saddam have proven the above statements to be correct. I’ll go into more detail in the months ahead so stick around. Suffice to say, we were lucky to have gotten in when we did considering the damage his WMD program, when properly ramped up, would’ve done given the ralities of a post 9/11 world.

-2. The rhetoric leading up to the March 2003 invasion changed from about Iraq working with Al Qaeda and having weapons of mass destruction to Hussein being an evil dictator who oppresses his people and America freeing them. –

Actually it didn’t change. The rhetoric was the same. The part about him oppressing his people and menacing his neighbors was always one of the reasons for war. Read the congressional mandate which authorized him to go to war and you’ll see I’m right. Remember that Iraq was ina state of cease-fire since 1991. Iraq had to prove it had disarmed. It did not, so we went in and made sure they had. Also – what people forget is that Iraq already had processed some Uranium (some 5 tons out of the 500tons of uranium that we discovered). Doubt me? Think its from some right-wing biased site? Try the NYTimes where it was first reported in May, 2004. OR try here;

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html

or here;

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml

or here;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

That uranium my friend, would’ve been used had the sanctions been lifted as most assuredly the IAEA would’ve been kicked out yet again.

-3. This was because the administration knew it had nothing to substantiate a preemptive invasion. This fact has been exhaustively researched and found to be factually accurate. And not just in now in hindsight. These facts were known before hand. But the administration had to save face. They threw down the gauntlet already and couldn’t back down now. 9. Bush and his ideological advisors purposely put in false information in his 2003 State of the Union address regarding Iraq’s attempts to acquire nuclear technology because he needed something to sell the war to the American people. And nothing sells war like fear. —

This is factually inaccurate my friend. This “state of the union” mantra of yours has been refuted over and over again regarding the “yellowcake” uranium Iraq was pursuing. Joe Wilson was proven to be a liar. I will actually be doing a post in the not so distant future on this very subject so please stick around.

-4. Lots of countries suffer from oppressive dictators much worse than Saddam Hussein (Korea, various African nations). Why don’t we free them? Because those counties have nothing to serve our self-interest. But Iraq most certainly does. Can you say “oil”? And that’s the bottom line. —

I’m afraid we’ll mainly have to disagree here. We do agree that countries do things in their own interest. Ours is no different. But we also do things in other countries’ interests too. As for “war for oil”, point to me one drop where we have confiscated the resource from Iraq and I’ll agree with you. We have not. We have liberated two Middle Eastern countries that are awash with oil (Kuwait, Iraq) and not once did we seize the oil. So I’m afraid we’re again going to disagree. Might I be so bold as to provide a suggestion? If you’re so worked up about the alleged “war for oil” then might I suggest that you stop driving and stop using the oil that we allegedly “took”?

A cheeky statement I realize. But just trying to prove a point that the free flow of oil is not necessarily a bad thing. I personally would wish we’d get off of oil. Bu that ain’t gonna happen in the near future. So in the meantime, I’m all for developing our domestic sources of oil and building more refineries to bring the price down. Remember, even with the war going on, its our lack of refining capacity and the multiple “flavors” of gasoline that are required by different states and regions at different parts of the year that is driving the price at the pump.

Thanks for the lively discussion!

How did Iraq threaten the United States to cause us to go there under the guise of the “war on terror”? Being an ardent and passionate supporter of democracy, I am not defending the regime of Saddam Hussein, but if the Bush administration would have been prudent they would have known that invading Iraq under definitive circumstances would have been devastating with long term ramifications. The rhetoric leading up to the March 2003 invasion changed from about Iraq working with Al Qaeda and having weapons of mass destruction to Hussein being an evil dictator who oppresses his people and America freeing them. This was because the administration knew it had nothing to substantiate a preemptive invasion. This fact has been exhaustively researched and found to be factually accurate. And not just in now in hindsight. These facts were known before hand. But the administration had to save face. They threw down the gauntlet already and couldn’t back down now. Bush and his ideological advisors purposely put in false information in his 2003 State of the Union address regarding Iraq’s attempts to acquire nuclear technology because he needed something to sell the war to the American people. And nothing sells war like fear.

Lots of countries suffer from oppressive dictators much worse than Saddam Hussein (Korea, various African nations). Why don’t we free them? Because those counties have nothing to serve our self-interest. But Iraq most certainly does. Can you say “oil”? And that’s the bottom line.

I would say the dems suddenly finding an area that could provide us with a huge amount of oil to be “off limits” would be worse. If we would explore and develop our own oil production we’d have less of a reason to have to “look the other way” when it comes to Saudi Arabia.

As for the “war”. Wars always cause disruptions in supplies. Remember though, we didn’t choose to be at war. Iraq is but one theatre in the War on Terror much like Europe, the Pacific and North Africa were theatres of war in WWII. This war, we would do well to remember, is one in which our opponent considers Iraq, the Middle East and pretty much the entire globe to be “fronts” on the battlefield. So I wouldn’t necessarily call it entirely “unavoidable”.

But that is also for another post that I will have soon.

-Thai

Whats worse? Democrats causing the price of oil to go up because they block drilling in a wildlife area or Republicans engaging in a war that disrupts supply and demand and causing instability in markets causing the price of oil to go up. Not to mention the war was complete avoidable.

Not saying that democrats aren’t wrong. Just that there is a lot of blame to go around. I suggest you look down the other side of the aisle before you go blindly blaming one side.

I suggest reading Sleeping with the Devil by Bob Baer. Great insight into the relationship with the United States and Saudi Arabi.