In regards to the oil sanctions, it was less a cost to Americans to engage in economic warfare and keep Saddam down then plunder ourselves attempting to do something George H.W. Bush himself stated was impossible to do - invade Iraq and withdraw easily while accomplishing the mission. Now we are paying the price. For what? I don't think it has been worth the cost so far. With the continued passage of time, money, and lives, it will prove to be even less so. Have you seen tangible benefit from this engagement? I would guess not. Particularly when there was no immediate threat, which was the primary reason we went to Iraq, correct?

First of all, I like to say it has been enjoyable to debate with you. Second, I think we started to reach the point of recycling argument points, which means we have reached an end point. As for the initial oil sanction, the sanction was put in place to force Saddam out of Kuwait (the oil sanction was in place before Desert Storm). It continued after the Desert Storm as a leavage to force Saddam to turn in his weapon. It also served as a secondary purpose to weaken Saddam so the Iraqis may overthrow him, and a few other purposes as well. These targets/purposes are mentioned by both H.W. Bush and Clinton adminstration. As it turns out, the oil sanction combined with food-for-oil program actually made Saddam more powerful and his people less. What the food-for-oil program did was it essentially made Saddam the only seller for the oil Iraq, granting him full monopoly to foreign country. As to 1996, I supported the oil sanction and Clinton because I believe the Iraqis would rise up and we don't have to do the invasion ourselves. However, after 1996 or so, one has to admit that the oil sanction was not making Saddam weaker, rather his people. It was basically a direct hit at his people, starving them. Don't let anyone tell you that the oil sanction can prevent Saddam from making chemical weapon, as you know Saddam get plently money from oil-for-food program. The reason he didn't persuded as hard as he did may be difficult to understand as the Duelfer report have shown Saddam has the capacity to rebuild his entire WMD program. So maybe Saddam didn't persude the weapons because of UN inspection. However, you also know the inspectors were kicked out Iraq in 1998, and they were not allowed in until Bush threaten to use force in 2001. There is no question that Saddam has been playing this cat and mouse game for 12 years and everythime USA withdraws its threat, Saddam kicks the inspectors out. The concept of leaving an American army force on ships and on the coast next to Iraq is the only way to make Saddam agree to inspection. However, that process of shipping and returning soldiers is more expensive than the rest of invasion. The costly part of an invasion is not ammuniation, but the shipping of equipments. I know it sound strange, but if you look at the cost, the most expensive part is the initial stage of the war -- the preparation of the war. We (USA) can't just play this cat and mouse game with Saddam and his sons forever -- shipping troops and war equipment back and forth.

Moreover, the oil sanction didn't work for 12 years, I really don't see how it will work for the next 12 years. As far as the nonexistence of the immediate threat, that is up for debate. I don't think there is any question that Saddam has the technology for chemical weapons and has extreme hatred for America. Prior to the war, every countries believe Saddam still has WMD. Putin even warned Bush about a terriost attack from Saddam. I am sure Putin is not the only foreign leader warns Bush about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

Was the invasion a mistake? You will have to look at the time prior to the invasion. Give the knowledge back then, was it a mistake? I will paraphase Tony Blair:

"The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together. And when people say, "That risk is fanciful," I say we know the Taliban supported Al Qaida. We know Iraq under Saddam gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people, who regard it as God's will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God's judgment.

Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder, and we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad.

This isn't fantasy, it is 21st-century reality, and it confronts us now.

Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.

But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive. "

The point he made is that there were two options for Bush. Either believes Saddam actually destroyed his weapons secretly and decided never shown the evidenace to UN inspectors, and run the risk that he actually didn't destory them and gives the weapons to terriost groups. Thus leads to something worse than 9/11. Or not believes Saddam and invades him and run the risk that he actually did destroyed his weapons. But the risk in the first case is just so terrible, and the misjudgement of the second is not even a mistake because Saddam is a terrible man to start with -- we are not outcasting a decent man in any case.

What you should ask yourself is that prior to the war is that all intelligence shows Saddam still have WMD. If we didn't think there is WMD, there won't be an oil sanction in place. Right? Otherwise, what was the sanction for? So we clearly believed that. As I mentioned, the oil sanction was to keep Saddam weak so that his people might rise up (which by 1996 we knew that is impossible), and the sanction also prevent Saddam from developing a huge army to invade his neighbor. That is also why we stationed troops in Saudi -- to minimize the possibility of Saddam invading Saudi. The oil sanction can be classified as the cold war "containment" strategy. After 9/11, and after Saddam congratulate the brave soul of the terriosts, one must understand the oil sanction in no way prevent Saddam giving one or two chemical weapons to a terriost and bring them to USA. The oil sanction can only prevent a huge army development. It doesn't prevent small quantity weapon development. As we know Saddm has money to build big palaces, building one or two VX bomb is very cheap in comparsion.

In short, I disgree. It is wrong to assume a cold war containment strategy can prevent Saddam from giving his WMD to a terriost group.

Even if you disagree with the initial invasion, you have to agree with the fact there are alot of terriost groups in Iraq now (Al-Quada) being one of them. This is a perfect showdown place for America versus these terriost groups. To leave it is to show terriost orgnaizations that they hav won, and truely fuel teir recuitment. At this point in time, to leave Iraq is to make the next terriost war front might be at home. I mean, if I am an Al Quada terriost, I will make American pay for their deed in Afghanistan (outcast Al Qaeda). The only reason I am fighting in Iraq and not America now, is that I have to win back a Muslium country from the crusader, but after they leave, I will attack the heartland of America.

I am sorry the Darfur argument doesn't buy you anything. It doesn't show the invasion is wrong Of course it doesn't prove the invasion itself wrong, it simply shows the lack of consistancy in foreign policy with the precedent set by invading Iraq regarding the humanitarian mission.

By the way, I thought I gave you some links which proved USA was fully engaged in Sudan situation, at least more so than most other countries. The inconsistency is there, sure. But we are probably less inconsistence than other countries.

Not very good about staying on Topic. The topic was the revocation of rights, and all 3 did that. That one was repealed is irrrelevant since it was passed. and the rights were revoked. So that destroys the posters arguement that

Good try at "shaking the tree" but no dice. I addressed each of the Amendments you hand picked. The fact that the one amendment that actually did take away a personal liberty was the 18th amendment which, since it was repealed, speaks volumes.

I think it's pretty questionable to argue that somehow instituting a tax and a term limit takes away "rights" from individuals, but if you want to make a case besides simply declaring them as right takers, then be my guest.

Reply #24 By: COL Gene - 11/9/2004 9:05:52 AM drmiler You have not looked at the polls and the reasons why Bush was re-elected. It is not his tax policies or his economic policies. In fact the vast majority of Americans in poll after poll did not agree with Bush on these issues. Over half do not agree with the Iraq War. Bush won on other isues and 61 % want major changes in his second term and 80 % want some change. This is the problem, Bush will stay the course. He will almost surely ignore what MOST Americans want with the economic and tax policies, health care, Social Security, Medicare, stem cell research as well as our foreign adventures. That is why Bush will go down as a poor president and our nation will suffer from his choices for decades to come! My book," Four More For George W?" can be looked as a prediction of what will take place. Even though you do not agree with me, you should buy a copy, put it on the shelf and in the future see just how closely the situation compares to what I predicted!

Excuse me.... How do YOU figure that only YOU know what most americans want? It's already been proven that MOST polls son't have a clue. If you doubt that just look at the exit polls for 2nd Nov.

Moreover, the oil sanction didn't work for 12 years
That's what we are told, but in reality, we suffered no detriment from them as opposed to this conflict.

I don't think there is any question that Saddam has the technology for chemical weapons

That's never been substantiated. It was true that at one point, he did, but no immediate threat was ever known, only threatened of by those that led us in to the war.

Was the invasion a mistake? You will have to look at the time prior to the invasion. Give the knowledge back then, was it a mistake?

As they say, hindisight is 20/20 and the faulty intelligence Blair later admitted it being gives me even less confidence in those handling war decisions.

Otherwise, what was the sanction for?

The oil sanction was preventative medicine, not punishment for acts. To limit the capability of Saddam to gain weapons. This was effective.

What you should ask yourself is that prior to the war is that all intelligence shows Saddam still have WMD

No. All the lines we were fed about chemical trailers and uranium yellow cake and canisters, etc. all failed to pan out. We were lied to then told the intelligence was "faulty".

Even if you disagree with the initial invasion, you have to agree with the fact there are alot of terriost groups in Iraq now

Yes. NOW. What do you get when you take some 200,000 troops and place them smack dab in the middle of fundamentalist holy ground?

A: A war insurgents will flood the country for to die in wonderful holy battle so that they may go to heaven with a clear conscience.

We have simply managed to stir up a hornet's nest.

Finally, let me say that the best thing we could do in response to terrorism is to guard our ports, secure our borders, reign in our immigration policy, and address the vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. That's the cheapest, smartest, most effective way of protecting America - decreasing our dependence on oil isn't a bad idea either...

drmiller

I am not the source of what voters want. Look at the Blog "2004 Presidential Exit Polls" by Draginol as one example. The truth is that Bush was not elected on his performamce to create Jobs( 5 million workers have come into the work force since Bush took office with no jobs), the economy, the deficit, Health Care, energy policy or the Iraq War.

Reply #24 By: COL Gene - 11/9/2004 9:05:52 AM drmiler You have not looked at the polls and the reasons why Bush was re-elected. It is not his tax policies or his economic policies. In fact the vast majority of Americans in poll after poll did not agree with Bush on these issues. Over half do not agree with the Iraq War. Bush won on other isues and 61 % want major changes in his second term and 80 % want some change.

Your right about the economy but NOT on the taxes. See Draginols post one more time.

MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE BUSH KERRY TOTAL 2004 2004 Taxes (5%) 57% 43% Education (4%) 26% 73% Iraq (15%) 26% 73% Terrorism (19%) 86% 14% Economy/Jobs (20%) 18% 80% Moral Values (22%) 80% 18% Health Care (8%) 23% 77%

At look at the rating on approval to go to war in Iraq.

DECISION TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ BUSH KERRY TOTAL 2004 2000 2004 Strongly Approve (29%) 94% n/a 6% Somewhat Approve (23%) 75% n/a 24% Somewhat Disapprove (15%) 25% n/a 73% Strongly Disapprove (31%) 5% n/a 94% And to fairly definitively answer this question, 52% of Americans support going into Iraq compared to only 46% who disapprove of going into Iraq. That's well outside the margin of error (in an exit poll that was already tilted a bit incorrectly in Kerry's favor based on the actual results). So yes, most Americans are glad we went into Iraq even though most people think things are going poorly.

drmiller

yes the tax issue per the polls shows people like tax cuts. The problem is that the tax cuts going to the wealthy have not produced the rate of economic growth to even restore the lost revenue from the tax cuts much less the added federal revenue needed to pay for increased defense spending and the Bush War in Iraq. Per the Congressional Budget Office, 270 Billion of the deficit of 450 billion is due to the tax cuts. We are borrowing the money for tax cuts to people who do not need a tax cut and do not spend it and create demand. Some economic policy! Add to this the Bush proposls to make the cuts we can not afforf permanent and to change Social Security that will require several more trillion to implement.

When we look back on the Bush years, there will be a realization how foolish we were to allow these policies to take place.

Reply #33 By: COL Gene - 11/9/2004 7:38:04 PM drmiller yes the tax issue per the polls shows people like tax cuts. The problem is that the tax cuts going to the wealthy have not produced the rate of economic growth to even restore the lost revenue from the tax cuts much less the added federal revenue needed to pay for increased defense spending and the Bush War in Iraq. Per the Congressional Budget Office, 270 Billion of the deficit of 450 billion is due to the tax cuts. We are borrowing the money for tax cuts to people who do not need a tax cut and do not spend it and create demand. Some economic policy! Add to this the Bush proposls to make the cuts we can not afforf permanent and to change Social Security that will require several more trillion to implement.

You know I REALLY hate it when you change course in mid-discussion. We were talking about why people voted for Bush NOT why the tax cuts are bad. This is *exactly* what I was refering to in another post to you. You NEVER say anything positive. Give you an inch and you'll change the subject or go off on an entirely different rant cutting down Bush at every chance.

FUCKING OIL

Well... it does come in handy, whichever word you put the emphasis on.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Moreover, the oil sanction didn't work for 12 years That's what we are told, but in reality, we suffered no detriment from them as opposed to this conflict.

I don't think you get the purpose of a preventive war. According to you, we should have never attacked German in World War 2, since they didn't attack us. The oil sanction was not working by any measure. It didn't make Saddam give up his weapons or make him lose power.

I don't think there is any question that Saddam has the technology for chemical weapons That's never been substantiated. It was true that at one point, he did, but no immediate threat was ever known, only threatened of by those that led us in to the war. Was the invasion a mistake? You will have to look at the time prior to the invasion. Give the knowledge back then, was it a mistake? As they say, hindisight is 20/20 and the faulty intelligence Blair later admitted it being gives me even less confidence in those handling war decisions.

Given the intelligence we have prior to the Iraq Invasion, Saddam was a bigger threat than Al-Qaeda in 1990. You missed one simple argument all along. The responsibility of the cease-fire agreement is on Saddam not on USA. It was Saddam's responsibility to prove he has destoryed his weapons, not USA responsiblity to prove he has WMD. You see, he had WMD before the Gulf War. We found more WMD in 1992 in Iraq. Since he has never shown he destoryed them, the assumption is that he still has weapons. Very simple: He had the weapons, we don't have any additional information, so we have to assume the original situation: he still has it. Look, let say a robber use a AK47 hold many people hostage in the first day. Now after a 7 days standoff, do you still assume he has his AK47 or you assume he doesn't have it anymore? You don't have any information in these seven days, so there is a chance that the robber might threw his gun away, but is that a logical assumption. Unless additional information is granted, one do not alter the orignal assumption and argument. It turns out that Saddam probably has destroyed his weapons secretly, but it is not our fault that he decides to destory them secretly and not shown any evidence to UN. The burden of proof was never -- never on USA.

Otherwise, what was the sanction for? The oil sanction was preventative medicine, not punishment for acts. To limit the capability of Saddam to gain weapons. This was effective.

Ah no. Who said that? Not according to Clinton. Why do you think he sign the 1997 Iraq Liberation Act (ILA)? I am sorry. The oil sanction does not in any way prevent Saddam building a weapon system and certainly does not prevent Saddam from giving his original WMD to terriosts. How could it? The current explanation for Saddam secretly destoryed his weapons is this: on one hand, he need to make sure the weapon inspectors can't find the weapons, so eventually the sanction will be lifted. On the other hand, he wanted his neighbor Iran as well as Iraqis think he still have WMD, so they don't take advantage of the situation. By destorying the WMD secretly, Saddam achieved both -- no one can be sure. Look, oil sanction does not prevent weapon build up, it just turn out that Saddam did it on his own, but he very well could have not done so. US also has sanction on Iran, and N. Korea, which obviously show you sanction generally does not work. Sanction may weaken a country economy, but it is up to its leader to decide how to allocate the remaining resource. If Saddam wanted, he can build a weapon system. You cannot be serious to say it is the oil sanction which prevented the weapon buildup, if so, you have a lot of explanation to do for Iran and espeically N. Korea. In additioan, It really doesn't take alot of weapons to pull a terriost act on USA. Look at bin Laden. Taliban in Afgahnistan is probably by far the pooriest government on earth. They put off Sepetmeber 11. Palestine is not even a real country. PLO has carried countless terriost acts on Israel. Saddam only has to give one or two weapons to terriost group and that group can do deveasting damaging to USA. By the way, if you think closely, the most expansive part for weapon system is the delivery system/guiding system/radar system. That is, it is relatively cheap to make something like anthrax (remember the anthrax scare shortly after 9/11). Anthrax can be produced in many universities by any graduate microbiology student. The expansive part for chemical/biochemical is the guiding system -- how to make the missile deliver the chemical/biochemical to the destinated target. Guess what? Saddam doesn't have to worry about the deliveray system if he decide to give his WMD to a terriost. They will just use it as a dirty bomb. So, how on earth will oil sanction stop that.

Finally, let me say that the best thing we could do in response to terrorism is to guard our ports, secure our borders, reign in our immigration policy, and address the vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. That's the cheapest, smartest, most effective way of protecting America - decreasing our dependence on oil isn't a bad idea either...

No, that will be more expansive than you think. Who told you it is the cheapest and smartest and most effective way? That person either is outright stupid or he is lying to you. Do you have any idea how much it will cost just to screen every shippings into this country. Turn out that, we can't afford that -- no one can. Defensive war is more expansive than you think. Let me try to explain this easily. Let say I am something who want to hurt your family and you know it. Do you think it is cheaper to buy a weapon and track me down? Or do you think it is cheaper to rebuild your house, put on all new locks, get an alarm system, buy a bullet proof car and maybe bullet proof vest for everyone. Defensive war is extremely expansive and you can never elimate the threat. The threat will always maintain -- because you don't hurt your opponent in a defensive position -- how can you, right? That is the reason FDR didn't just sit there and wait for the Nazi to attack.

Incredibly informative, the best argument for the Iraq war given at JU.

Incredibly informative, the best argument for the Iraq war given at JU.

I guess we will never convince each other's point of view. Although I am sure our conversations have help us understanding the concerns from the other side. Certainly, this is not a black-and-white situation as many believe. Best.

Incredibly informative, the best argument for the Iraq war given at JU.

I guess we will never convince each other's point of view. Although I am sure our conversations have help us understanding the concerns from the other side. Certainly, this is not a black-and-white situation as many believe. Best.

delete this message

If you think Bush invaded iraq for oil you are blinded by the left wing nuts. France and Russia were the contries that were willing to let hundreds of iraqis die in the name of oil. Because Saddham had promised them each oil feilds and 10 dollars a barrel for oil, if they were to vote no on invading iraqi. WHY? so that saddham could keep his evil dictatorship of an empire