First, Drop the Moral Pretensions

this took all of 2 seconds to find-

Kucinich Reveals Dem Funding Bill Includes Privatization of Iraq Oil & Carte Blanche to Invade Iran

June Caldwell
May 6, 2007

In a meeting with the West Los Angeles Democratic Club on Saturday, May 5, Presidential candidate and Ohio Congress Representative Dennis Kucinich revealed that the Democrats in Congress had made some secret concessions to the Republicans in the initial Bill to continue funding the Iraq War that was vetoed, and in a subsequent version that is currently being negotiated. They include:

>Privatization of Iraq’s Oil – in the original Bill, but not shared with the public. A rule was created that said this clause could not be removed during debate on House floor.

>Bush could invade Iran without approval of Congress. A clause that would require him to get approval from Congress first was removed.

>Timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq to be removed from Bill (in post-veto version).

The clause that Iraq must privatize ownership of its oil was in the original Bill presented by Congress, although it was not mentioned publicly. It was stated as a benchmark to be met by Iraq, and if it was not met, the US would withdraw troops and refuse to offer peacekeeping troops to help rebuild the country. That means the Iraqis would not own their own oil, but instead International oil companies, primarily US oil companies, would instead divide ownership of the oil.

This seems to reaffirm the worst possible scenario that the war in Iraq not only was built upon lies, but was solely for the purpose of destroying their country so the big US oil companies can own their oil. These same oil companies are still resolute about keeping the oil prices high at the pumps for US citizens (while refraining refinery capacity), so that they alone retain record-breaking profits. Kucinich explained he requested on the Congress floor that clause be removed from the Bill, and was finally assured it would be. He found it was not, and again demanded it be removed, and was then accused of ‘not being a loyal Democrat’.

Kucinich went on to explain that last November, the citizens of the US voted for a ‘change of direction in Iraq’ but as of yet have only gotten a bait and switch.

American Chronicle | California Chronicle | Los Angeles Chronicle

it is truly the strangest doublespeak-

cb- instead of addressing the immorality of the entire occupation to begin with-

you are trying to manipulate some already extant paranoia against iran?

so youre symapthetic to the fates of the kurds and the shia? (otherwise why would we be there? without that noble sympathetic response- our motives become quite questionable.)

arent the iranians shia?
arent the kurds of the PKK currently terrorizing the turkish muslim population?

so who constitutes the lightly veiled accusation of "enemy" to you?

all people are cookie cut-outs and clearly good or bad?

despite your revisinism cb- saddam was secualar-

this war has coalesced the 'al-qaeda' and terrorists who poured into iraq after our intervention-

not before.

whose good and whose bad in your opinion?

Volt Rare:

I forgot to mention that, yes, large companies directly profit from the war. And, yes, the war was pretty much a disaster. It was not well planned at all. About the only well-planned aspect was domestic propaganda.

And I totally agree that Saddam was not a threat. Actually the only threat was the United States government, and the victims are the Iraqi people, and the soldiers without limbs or with psychological or neurological injuries.

It was a terribly planned operation - all positions can agree on that.

Volt Rare:
"Which is it? Is the invasion of Iraq based upon moralistic grounds or is it based upon national interest? In both cases, evidence and reason clearly indicate that the invasion of Iraq was neither moral nor in the national interest.

the invasion of Iraq showed themselves to be closely allied with PNAC, Iran & its friend - Chalabi, Big Oil, military contractors/corporations, and misguided right-wing Likudniks, etc..."

---

The interests of the most powerful generally do not align with those of the middle class. But in this case the national interest - global economic competitiveness - may have been served. Control of oil supplies is a power that may give the United States somewhat greater control on the direction of the world economy. (This ignores the well-being of the middle and lower classes.)

1) Keep oil scarce,
2) Decrease domestic middle-class consumption of oil,
3) Maintain a greater amount of domestic manufacturing,
4) Hold an advantage in trade negotiations.

3) can happen because China's advantage of cheap labor depends somewhat on cheap energy and raw materials. If energy or raw materials become(s) expensive, cost of labor is less of a competitive factor. Other factors, such as infrastructure, transportation, and efficiency come into play.

I don't believe in "win win" situations in general. I just think that large industry is generally aligned with national economic competitiveness.

But that does not mean that national economic competitiveness is always or very directly correlated with the well-being of the middle class.

Anyway, I voted for the Dems. I don't want to be responsible for such mayhem. I am a (middle class) citizen of the world.

"Sometimes nations are fighting for the good of humanity and for civilization. Sometimes, the enemy is as evil as our leaders remind us they are. Sometimes, the self-interest of the nation is the interest of its neighbors. "
...
"The Middle East holds more dangers than the morally pretentious critics of the Bush Administration are willing to admit. It's far easier to complain of the violence in front of you than the violence that is to come if you do not act"

The moral argument claiming that the invasion of Iraq was for the sake of humanity and civillization, conflicts with the disparagement of even the concept of moralistic arguments made by the left.

Which is it? Is the invasion of Iraq based upon moralistic grounds or is it based upon national interest? In both cases, evidence and reason clearly indicate that the invasion of Iraq was neither moral nor in the national interest.

To compare Saddam's Iraq to Nazi Germany is intellectual duplicity, in terms of scale, and threat to the world. There is no way that Saddam's Iraq was a viable military threat to the world. It would be trying to equate an angry dog in a cage to a pack of lions running amok in a schoolyard.

The argument that invading Iraq was a humanitarian intervention is misinformed at best. More Iraqis have died and are dying today due to our "intervention" and the civil war fomented than if we had left Saddam contained.

The most influential proponents and profiteers of the invasion of Iraq showed themselves to be closely allied with PNAC, Iran & its friend - Chalabi, Big Oil, military contractors/corporations, and misguided right-wing Likudniks, etc...

"The truth about the Iraq war is different than you suppose.

It was not to obtain cheap oil. It was to continue to maintain high oil prices. It has been remarkably successful at that.

It is not too hard to follow if you think about it. Support for the sanctions was weakening. They were only held up by the fiction that Saddam had WMDs, and it was becoming clear even to those who paid attention in the US that he did not have them any more. (He destroyed the stocks that we sold to him.)

For this and various political reasons (Saddam gaming other countries with promises of oil reserves) the sanctions would expire. What would happen then? Iraq with the second or third largest reserves would be free to flood the market with oil.

Who would not like that? Well, Bush's other country Saudi Arabia for one. The entire White House staff for another (their day job was with the oil industry.)

So invading Iraq would either let us control the oil (keep it off the market) or be a huge disaster like it is now and keep the oil off the market. It was a slam dunk!"

EXACTLY! What better way to compete with the emerging, oil hungry, economies such as China? Control the oil supply, somehow.

I will say it again: major Chinese companies had contracts to do work on major Iraqi oil fields as soon as trade embargoes were lifted. That never happened, obviously.

There are economists, game theorists and other strategists considering these factors in the White House. To dismiss the effect of the most important energy source in the world is just insular.

CB,

But it is true that the US supported the conflict before, and that the invasion of Iraq has resulted in more sectarian violence that would have otherwise occurred.

I agree that Iraq is a troubled place, and that Saddam is a terrible person. But the record shows that the US has not been a moral force in Iraq. Now now, and not before. It would have been better for the people in that region if we would have never intervened.

Ben writes:
"And the US didn't support Saddam before the 1990s. And there wasn't less sectarian violence before the invasion of Iraq."

I know what you're thinking...easy target.

Is Ben aware of the sectarian efforts by Sunni Saddam to exterminate large portions of Kurds and Shias? The sectarian violence between Sunni controlled Iraq and Shia controlled Iran, the war that resulted on over 1,000,000 deaths? (Count the zeros again Ben, it's worth it.)

I'll be the first to agree that the US made some very stupid realpolitick mistakes by favoring Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, although in hindsight, it's clear that such favoritism was minimal at best, given Iraq's inability to deal with Iran's military forces.

However, the idea that Saddam could have been contained, or that he wouldn't (or wasn't) willing to deal with terror organizations, or that a U.S. pullout would somehow quell the internal violence are just extensions of that kind of realpolitick thinking.

Iraq has always been a very troubled place. Most dictatorships are. The U.S. and U.K. tried to change the country with the minimal focers and violence (compared to say the kind of military juggernaut approach of previous wars) and to balance geopolitical needs in a post 9-11 world with a domestic media and political establishment that values political victory over national interest.

The result is more Iraqis, Americans, and Brits dead than if the U.S. had simply taken a direct and comprehensive approach. I must admit that I was in agreement with the reduced forces approach, mainly because some in the military were cynically arguing for massive forces as a means to short-circuit intervention (because the forces needed would put a huge strain on the military due to personnel cutbacks) and perhaps the forces could have been better organized. Certainly our tactics in Anbar and elsewhere could have been more consistent. They are now under Gen. Petraus.

California Condor writes, in amongst the insincere Michael Mooresque boilerplate, that Mesopotamia will fall to Persian power. It will only be so if the US abandons Iraq and fails to cut off the Iranian influence that is helping to fuel some of the worst violence in Iraq. As always, Bush's critics fail to concentrate on the real mistakes in military and infrastructural tactics that the Administration has made, and leap, like rabid bats to the jugular, to blame Bush for the ambition of others, be they Iranian Shia radicals using Al-Sadr as a front for the domination of Iraq, Sunni insurgents angling for a return to Baathist rule or some tribal approximation, or Al-Queda, terrorizing Iraqis on a daily basis, murdering and maiming. Their hatred for Bush, whatever his flaws, blinds them from their real enemy, the forces of authoritarianism and murder, the real lovers of death. Open your eyes that you may see!

The truth about the Iraq war is different than you suppose.

It was not to obtain cheap oil. It was to continue to maintain high oil prices. It has been remarkably successful at that.

It is not too hard to follow if you think about it. Support for the sanctions was weakening. They were only held up by the fiction that Saddam had WMDs, and it was becoming clear even to those who paid attention in the US that he did not have them any more. (He destroyed the stocks that we sold to him.)

For this and various political reasons (Saddam gaming other countries with promises of oil reserves) the sanctions would expire. What would happen then? Iraq with the second or third largest reserves would be free to flood the market with oil.

Who would not like that? Well, Bush's other country Saudi Arabia for one. The entire White House staff for another (their day job was with the oil industry.)

So invading Iraq would either let us control the oil (keep it off the market) or be a huge disaster like it is now and keep the oil off the market. It was a slam dunk!

Mr. Anderson,

What we need to do is to stop pretending that there is no moral imperative in Iraq. It is clear from what the Iraqis are telling the U.S. and Britain, as well as from what our own military forces are seeing on the ground on a daily basis, that the forces of unrest in Iraq will only benefit from and thrive in our absence.

The greatest lie of this conflict is the presumption that Iraq's troubles began with US intervention, whether in the 1991 Gulf War or the 2003 invasion. Iraq has been wracked by political and military violence for decades now, stemming from the cruel and reckless leadership of the Baath Party which brought the country to ruin.

Sometimes nations see beyond their own self interest. It would have been in Britain's temporary interest to sue for peace with Germany after Dunkirk. Instead, the British recognized the intractable evil of the enemy they faced and waged war against it with their allies until it was vanquished.

You write: "Niebuhr’s argument is that nations never make a frank avowal of their real motives, that nations will always clothe their self interest in a claim to be fighting for civilization, the good of humanity, order or democracy. Such claims, of course, help secure the allegiance and devotion of the citizenry to the cause in question."

This is cynicism masquerading as wisdom. Sometimes nations are fighting for the good of humanity and for civilization. Sometimes, the enemy is as evil as our leaders remind us they are. Sometimes, the self-interest of the nation is the interest of its neighbors. Ask the Germans, the Jews, the Japanese, the French in WWII, the South Koreans in the Korean War, the boat people of Vietnam.

This doesn't mean that war isn't a brutal, bloody business to be avoided where possible, but where men like Hussein will not give quarter, and especially where they are foolishly bolster by truly self-interested allies (France, Germany, and Russia in the case of Iraq, all who were wanting the sanctions regime to end in order to fulfill clandestinely negotiated agreements with Iraq) sometimes the action of a nation or in this case nations is like that of a surgeon, an attempt to cut out what cannot be saved for the better good of all.

The Middle East holds more dangers than the morally pretentious critics of the Bush Administration are willing to admit. It's far easier to complain of the violence in front of you than the violence that is to come if you do not act.

We frequently hear things from the new totalitarians like this: "Many in America today have patently lost the sense of responsibility that made this country so great and it has now been replaced with a sense of entitlement ... ". Was it that "sense of responsibility" that kept George W. Bush from admitting a single mistake he has made, led him to fight and dodge any inquiry into how he allowed 9/11 to happen and how he has cost the lives of thousands of Americans and countless Iraqis, kept him dully reading a children's book as the hijacked airliners kept hitting their targets? Or was it his "sense of entitlement" and slothful thinking that has led the United States into the most dishonorable, most disastrous military blunder in its history, turning Mesopotamia over to Persian power? Is it that alleged "sense of responsibility" that leads George W. Bush into unitary executive federalism, a recipe for erasing checks and balances, crushing our country into an authoritarian, one-party mold? Or was it his "sense of entitlement" that allows him to speak of himself as "The Decider" and the government as "his" and the role of "commander in chief" as a pass to do literally anything he pleases whenever he chooses? Another age would ridicule such hypocrisy, mendacity and cant. The Founders set up our Constitution precisely to protect us from "deciders" like Bush and his apologists. How well we will be protected remains to be seen.

Hey Brian,

Google Ron Paul....this is the candidate for you, perhaps.

This question about Iraq is a boring question. It has more to do with politics than with faith. Here is a question that the Post should be asking:

"Is it right for Muslims to be building Mosques in Western nations when the Christian proselytizing and church building is banned by law in most Islamic nation?"

==============================
Gigantic mosque sparks furious row in Germany
The Telegraph Group
Published: June 25, 2007, 23:30

Cologne, Germany: The construction of one of Europe's biggest mosques near to a globally famous Christian landmark has sparked a furious row in Germany.

Immigration and integration are hugely sensitive questions in Germany, which is home to a Turkish community of several million.

But almost within the shadow of Cologne Cathedral, political correctness has now been replaced by bitter confrontation, as the city's Muslims begin to build a 2,000-capacity mosque whose twin min-arets will reach 170 feet...

====================

There are now more than 2,000 Mosques in America.

Here are some questions we should all be asking:

Is the colossal "double standard" practiced by Islam of taking advantage of our freedom of religion in Western nations vs. persecution of Christians and Jews in Islamic nations something we should allow? Should the Mosque in Cologne be allowed as long as as Cathedral can not be built in Mecca?

I'd like to bring up a question of morality, but slightly off the Iraq topic. It's about a policy decision that was supposed to remain under the radar. "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." A tri-lateral agreement between Bush, Mexico and Canada, that is veiled as a free trade program, but one of the provisions is to keep an open border between the countries for an immense guest worker program.

Here's the morality issue. Only Bush and the leader of Mexico and Canada were involved. Not congress. In fact, another provision of what's referred to as the "SPP" states that congress has no oversight privileges.

It's especially important right now because the immigration bill is back on the floor of the Senate. And no one's talking about this "SPP" Those of the Senate who insist on border security, or those opposed to a new guest worker program don't seem to know those issues have already been agreed to.
It seems the upcoming vote is at least in part, superfluous.

It's no surprise that this comprehensive immigration bill didn't go through the proper legislative process. No committees or sub-committees. 8 senators and Bush brought the plan directly to the senate floor for a vote.

Now it's being brought up for another vote.

And Bush is claiming to spend billions on border security this time. He's not being honest. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security was supposed to have already had an 850 mile wall built on the border. Only 12 miles have been completed.

The immigration bill is 1000 pages long, but most of the senate hasn't even read it. In fact, unlike every other bill in the history of the country, they were voting on a bill that hadn't even been written. And it's still not written in its entirety. Only 20 or so amendments will be allowed.

No matter how you feel about this issue, it's important to recognize that yet another decision has been made without America's consent.

True, it's in congress and it's being voted on.
But so was the bill to go to war in Iraq. And that had many provisions congress didn't even know about.

Imagine Hillary Clinton commenting on this immigration reform bill 5 years from now:

"Had I known then what I know now...)

Well, if you're reading this, you know now. I encourage you to google: "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America."

Or if you're really brave, discover what this might be laying the groundwork for.

Google: "North American Union" and a possible replacement for the dollar called the "amero"

Dav

As you have probably already seen, BGone and Jozevz are two peas in a pod.

Waaaaayyyyy out in left field, past the bull pen, under the stands and in a field of dreams. Its obvious.

Glad there are some writers, historians et al out there that make sense. These two have nothing to offer.

Keith asks:

"Did Bush lie?"

Absolutely. He and his cronies insisted for months that they knew for a fact that Saddam had illegal weapons; that they knew which weapons he had, how many he had and where they were.

They didn't say they "suspected" or "believed" the Iraqis "might have" such weapons, they said they KNEW. They used words like "certainty", and "incontrovertible proof" (which they couldn't show anyone...)

Even if they actually believed in the existence of those weapons and in the threat they posed (and I don't for a minute think they really did) they lied about the quality of the evidence; they lied about the degree of confidence in the intelligence community in their assessments.

They lied to you, Kieth. Why would you continue to trust them?

Regards

A Hermit

Saddam didn't supress those rivalries he fueled them with death and destruction for his foes on the other side of the religious line. It is no accident that the majority of his attrocities were committed against the Shi's and the Kurds rather than against the Sunnis.

Saddam wasn't immortal what was going to prevent a blood bath after his death certainly not those two incompetent sons of his who were already dispised by their fell Sunnis.

My sympathy for the travails that you, my neighbors to the south, are going through. I do believe that your hearts (whatever your politics) are in the right places.

Standing further from the trees, and hopefuly better able to see the forest, I make the following (hopefuly constructive) comment:

If I were a Yank, I would very carefully study the history of a number of past empires, particularly the British empire. Then I would go back and study the histories again.

Then I would ask myself the following questions:

Are we Yanks following the path that the Blokes followed over the past few hundred years?

If we are, will that path lead to the same place that it led the Blokes?

My sympathy for the travails that you, my neighbors to the south, are going through. I do believe that your hearts (whatever your politics) are in the right places.

Standing further from the trees, and hopefuly better able to see the forest, I make the following (hopefuly constructive) comment:

If I were a Yank, I would very carefully study the history of a number of past empires, particularly the British empire. Then I would go back and study the histories again.

Then I would ask myself the following questions:

Are we Yanks following the path that the Blokes followed over the past few hundred years?

If we are, will that path lead to the same place that it led the Blokes?

My sympathy for the travails that you, my neighbors to the south, are going through. I do believe that your hearts (whatever your politics) are in the right places.

Standing further from the trees, and hopefuly better able to see the forest, I make the following (hopefuly constructive)comment:

If I were a Yank, I would very carefully study the history of a number of past empires, particularly the British empire. Then I would go back and study their histories again.

Then I would ask myself the following questions:

Are we Yanks following the path that the Blokes followed over the past few hundred years?

If we are, will that path lead to the same place that it led the Blokes?

My sympathy for the travails that you, my neighbors to the south, are going through. I do believe that your hearts (whatever your politics) are in the right places.

Standing further from the trees, and hopefuly better able to see the forest, I make the following (hopefuly constructive)comment:

If I were a Yank, I would very carefully study the history of a number of past empires, particularly the British empire. Then I would go back and study their histories again.

Then I would ask myself the following questions:

Are we Yanks following the path that the Blokes followed over the past few hundred years?

If we are, will that path lead to the same place that it led the Blokes?

"Too lose political and Moral capital among leftists almost always means you are doing what ought to be done."

That appears to be a poor justification for the _optional_ deaths of thousands of people.

The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. In this context the war in Iraq has been a failure. We didn’t bring peace but unearthed ancient rivalries in which has produced a blood bath… Tragic… My heart goes out to the innocents who have been afflicted.

Too lose political and Moral capital among leftists almost always means you are doing what ought to be done.

Dav, your source is without question guaranteed accurate. Can we expect film a 11? Who was there in heaven to see all that happen?

So just where does the story, Isiah 14 or wherever come from? How reliable is the source? How reliable is your source, that Satan and Lucifer are the same individual? How is it there's two different names, as just one significant difference? Why is Satan known as "the accuser" and Lucifer the leader of the fallen angels? You know it's a calculated attempt to disguise. Oops. Sorry, I completely forgot that faith is evidence.

Either the Bible is pure fiction or it has a source older than itself. Which do you prefer? Hoax buster is simply showing a source for information like Satan that is much older than the Bible. And it was done in picture writing by the original writers. Being unable to read the script is one thing but not being able to look at a picture....

How sorry are you for my soul? A soul is a record of one's sins. There's lots of folks in the pen that would just love to have their souls burned, their records that is. I see no need to burn mine yet.

Dav, you have been threatened, terrorized with the fires of hell and now you're as stuck as a bug on flypaper. Unless of course you're operating a road block on the nebol bridge, J-Hawking, leading the multitudes, as many as you can to hell. Let us prey.

BGONE,
I will answer that question. First, how is it that Hoax-busters has all the answers? It sounds more like a bible buster web site to me. If anyone writes something to sound true and correct to someone that has your style of thinking, of course you'd believe it. Now on the issue of the bible, it doesn't fit my way of thinking always, so I can chose to believe it or not. Reguardless if I agree with it or not. Unlike your source which is the one that sounds GOOD to you.
Satan, Lucifer was the angel in charge of worship in heaven before the creation of the earth. He was there when it happened. That's when he thought to himself I will do that and become God. That is when God threw him out of heaven. Read Isiah 14. When all he could think is "I" and God said, No you're not! The created will not be the creator. I believe that is simple enough for even someone as limited as you to understand.
As for your Eyptian theroy, if that is what the hoax web site is telling you and you believe it, sorry for your soul.

The above post is mine and I meant to say Rev Anderson and not Rev Elliott who can also give us his so we can compare. Sorry about that.

GINGHAM:

Satan is "the accuser" therefore anyone who "accuses" is a Satan. ..."accuser" loves Hillary...

Satan is an invention of ancient Egypt. That HOAX involved the dead being intercepted in the gap between this life and the next by angels of the Lord God, Pharaoh and "accused" of being disloyal, sinners, violators of God's, Pharaoh's law no less. Therefore Satan is God's right hand man sorting out saints and sinners.

The final decision as to who would be let into the next life, the next kingdom of God, Pharaoh, and who would be thrown into hell was God's, Pharaoh's. That's the third judgment.

Everyone must undergo three judgments.
1. We must be of the correct race. That was Egyptian of course during Pharaoh's reign, the kingdom of God here on earth. Baptism is a race change operation that makes the Baptized Egyptian, we can suppose. All who were not Egyptian then and baptized now were/will be cast into hell.

2. Satan performs the second judgment, the judgment of soul. Sins are determined by giving the judged a lie detector test. When the instrumentation indicates Satan records the sin on the judged person's soul, (record of one's sins). The detail is simple. Satan accuses and the judged deny with the "detector" moving according to the truth of the denial.

3. The third judgment is God's, Pharaoh's alone. During the reign of any particular Pharaoh the dead that passed judgments 1 and 2 were held in a place called Limbo awaiting their "savior" Pharaoh to die and get them out. Pharaoh has the keys to the kingdom of God, Pharaoh.

The three great faiths have that bit of history totally screwed up.

I hope that answers your question. Perhaps Rev Elliott would care to give us his "historically accurate" version of who Satan is.

http://www.hoax-buster.org has the whole story.

Bush bought the HOAX. The first HOAX he believed is the Bible. That FAITH set him up to believe the HOAX that has killed and crippled thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi. Mr Wilson told him the intelligence about the purchase of uranium in Africa was a HOAX.

He was told the Bible is a HOAX. Deny one HOAX deny another. http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 **beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt! Faith moves mountains,, of lies,, to mountains of absolute truths, good enough truths to kill for,, unless of course there is another motive. I believe we the people are the judge or have we abdicated our responsibility to the ministry, bought the HOAX ourselves? Not all of us :)

There is much evidence that Bush was exposed to contrary evidence about WMD. The UN weapons inspectors even protested.
In addition, it is also a question of judgement. Starting a war is a very serious decision, and it cannot be reversed, and thousands of people will die. Given uncertain intel, and low consequences of waiting, the judgement to start the Iraq invasion is clearly suspect.

A genocide is occuring in Darfur. A genocide has occurred in Rwanda. A genocide has occurred in Cambodia. It is hypocritical & logically inconsistent to claim that _starting_ the Iraq invasion was about preventing genocide. As for leaving Iraq now, it is uncertain that a genocide would occur if the US leaves. Right now, that is just another unsubstantiated ideological talking point. I do advocate that a political solution should be pursued in order to allow a proper exit strategy. Tough diplomacy and politics will bring about peace in that region, and not military force.

Indeed, the invasion of Iraq is a huge strategic boon to Iran. It clearly does not appear to be of any positive benefit to the _United States_.

The "moral clout" of which the United States proudly could haved claimed to be a shining expemplar, was essential in bringing diplomatic pressure and persuasion in regards to urging other countries to improve their human rights record.

What sickens me is the attitude that one can push the US into a costly war of aggression, sacrificing its own young, for the profit and strategic interests of other parties.

What is grossly irresponsible is avoiding true accountability for extreme mistakes of judgement, strategy, and tactics which have cost thousands of lives which did not need to be have been lost.

Riiiigghhtt Keith,

And the US didn't support Saddam before the 1990s. And there wasn't less sectarian violence before the invasion of Iraq. Any anyone who disagrees is a bleeding heart liberal who just can't see that the real problem is "personal responsibility" (or other such vague nonsense).

Why don't you try getting your head out of... American partisan politics, for a little while? Republicans and Democrats are quite similar to each other. "responsibility" can not make up for the lack of social interconnectedness that previously made people "responsible". My friend, you are guilty of sloth.

What do you think drives war? Morality and "good intentions"? If you believe that, you are naive.

Did Bush lie? Absolutely not.
Did Bush rely on the best information available? Yes.
Did Bush not believe the exact same things that the Democrats have been saying since the mid 90's? Absolutely. Visit http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml for definitive proof.
Is the war in Iraq moral? Absolutely and if you need to have the difference between intentionally pursuing the death and destruction of an ethnic group because they differ from you and the regrettable yet unintentional deaths caused in any conflict then I weep for you. Saddam instigated many war. He attached Iran. He then invaded Kuwait in order to rape that country for it's wealth so that he could continue to fight Iran. Saddam also directly murdered thousands of Kurds on a whim. Saddam funded world wide terrorism. His army ran multiple camps, most notable of all was Salman Pac, wherein his military trained terrorist forces in such activities as bomb-making, surveillance and weapons tactics.

The man was a vile and disgusting beast and anyone who can't see that worries me.

As for all you knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathers answer me this. To date, which US President has awarded Haliburton more no-bid contracts? Bush or Clinton?

Here's a hint, he plays the saxaphone.

As for those who feel that the US lost "moral clout" because of the invasion you need to stop confusing yourself. Moral clout IS NOT popularity. In fact, the two are often mutually exclusive. The moral person is most usually not the most well liked and if our losing of popularity on the worlds stage is any indicator then we are truly following the moral compass needle.

What sickens me the most is the scary fact that many in America today have patently lost the sense of responsibility that made this country so great and it has now been replaced with a sense of entitlement and sloth.

Much of the money spent on the war flows into the US economy. Vehicles, weapons, etc.

The world economy is based on oil. The developing world is increasing the demand.

Companies that stand to profit from new forms of energy are not powerful enough.

The Bush administration is full of oil experts - Bush is one.

The invasion of Iraq cannot be about true national interest.

1) The US lost a great deal of political and moral capital throughout the world, and it will reverberate into the future (ie: Gitmo, torture, initiating a war of invasion, etc...)

2) If it's about securing oil supplies, the same about of money spent on this war -- billions, trillions, could be spent on alternative energy research and actually buying hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles, nuclear powerplants, geothermal, etc... Alternative energy development would be what would truly secure this country's economic security.

3) If it is about going after the terrorists, then we should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan. In addition, it would have been more productive to capitalize on the world's great deal of support, post-911, by enlisting other governments' to ally their police forces in rooting out terrorists. (Instead we alienated and scared the rest of the world by invading another country without legitimate, moral cause.)

It was completely illogical to invade Iraq while we are in Afghanistan. WHAT WAS THE RUSH? This point is extremely telling. There was no logical reason to rush to war in Iraq, unless there were criminal, underhanded motives to secure the Iraq quagmire.

----

as for the tired excuse of blaming Bill Clinton for GWB believing that Iraq had WMD:
You don't bet the farm (trillions$, and 3000+ volunteer kids lives) on a set of bluff cards in a poker match. That's just stupid and immorally reckless. Bill Clinton wasn't stupid enough to start a war of aggression based on iffy intel, when there wasn't an overriding need to take a huge risk.
And anyway, with Bill Clinton's saber rattling foreign policy, you can accuse to make sure Saddam won't even think of going there, and it cost nothing. That's nuanced intelligence. GWB and Cheney didn't have that and look how America's foreign policy has been hurt.

----------

As for following the money:
1) Cheney was previously CEO at Halliburton, started the Iraq war, and then gave Halliburton huge no-bid contracts because of that war.
2) Cheney held "secret energy meetings" with who? Dunno, because he'll fight tooth and nail to keep it secret -- why? For America's interests? no. For his own probably.
3) Oil & gasoline prices shoot up 200%+ Energy companies make a killing. Hmmm... what a coincidence, especially when Wolfowitz (whom GWB appointed to the World Bank -- another absurdity of reward) claimed that oil would flow from Iraq to pay for the war.
4) The military industrial complex (MIC) gets more business. Especially after the end of the Cold War, the MIC is probably encouraged to drum up business by touting new foreign threats. Right-wing, hard line foreign policy positions are easy to disseminate and publically hype without much opposition and skeptical cross-examination in the media and among politicians in Congress.

Reinhold Niebuhr also was an early promoter of Communism in the US in the 1930's. Perhaps one of the first to espouse moral equivalency between Stalin's Russia and the USA. Say no more....

by the way, what is it about Episcopalians? They seem to have this strange desire for self-extinction of themselves and their faith.

Who the heck is Satan?

How has religion created peace?

SATAN LOVES HILLARY, OBAMA, AND EDWARDS!

SATAN LOVES HILLARY, OBAMA, AND EDWARDS!

PS - where did Saddam get the weapons for that attack on the kurds?

Also, who gave tacit approval of the massacre?

THE GOOD OLD USA.

The twisted political use of humanitarian issues by those who support this war (or any war) is unbelievable!

"...in Iraq, where we have great national security interests..."

Are you an Israeli, Koolaid?

Because that is the only way that your above statement makes sense.

....unless you are a Neo Con....and believe corporate utopia of American imperialism and think that they "hate us because of our freedom!"

You seem to be still drinking more than your fair share the cool aid.

Over 1 million Kurds, Shiites, Kuwaitees and Iranians killed in his 24 year reign and you have to ask if Hussein was a mass murderer? Seems to me that those who think this wasn't a just war have no sense of justice and no claim to moral judgments. I'll bet that most of you who ignore Saddam Hussein's reign of mass death argue that the United States should intervene militarily in Darfur to stop that genocide. If is is moral there, where no U.S. interest are in play, why is it immoral to do so in Iraq, where we have great national security interests. I call you hypocrites and fools!

GaryD,

Didn't people look at the shadow of the earth on the moon and still maintain the earth was flat because the Bible said the earth had four corners and it looked flat from where they stood?

Not much different in that and what's going on today in terms of government. Why would Bush want to undermine the Constitution of the United States of America, which he took and oath to preserve, protect, and defend? And Cheney took a different oath which is the standard oath for government employees which included the requirement to "defend the Constitution of the United States of America 'against all enemies, foreign and domestic' and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter'". The sworn duty of both is to defend the Constitution. There is certainly no honor in what they are doing compared to what they swore they would do and clearly there has to be some objective by someone other than maintaining the Constitution of the United States of America as the governing instrument for these united states.

SPEED123:

"Means do not justify ends; we are a nation of principle and law - both of which have threated in the name of imperialism and special interests favored by this administration.

The true fight to secure fabric and security of our Republic is at home!"

I agree. Regarding eavesdropping, there are two viable options:

1) Continue to let the federal government eavesdrop on us, but don't let it become common knowledge. It should be a secret wherever possible, and it should not become a legal precedent.

This will not solve the legal issue, but it is better than openly allowing almost unlimited eavesdropping.

2) Develop a framework of laws, checks and balances to protect both privacy and security. At the same time, allow a limited amount of very secret eavesdropping, for a certain amount of time, say ten years, until laws are created to clarify where privacy begins, and where it ends. Hopefully our privacy is left intact.

The rule of law is ultimately much more important to our security than the terrorism threat of the day. If the legal system is robust, we will be able to deal with security threats swiftly and without political turmoil.

As it stands, the government has taken option 1. That is a cop out.

This is a very important issue that needs to be dealt with. We need a balanced, principled and ultimately constitutional approach!

No cop outs David! If you want eavesdropping to be allowed for the federal government, then the burden is on you to support the creation of laws that regulate privacy in our communication systems! I am not completely against all forms of eavesdropping.

That is the American way.

didn't Niebuhr also argue that the Nazi persecution of Jews was justified?

All of you "no blood for oil" die hards should read the following:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/03/06/p14964

It is not oil, but neo conservative desire for geo political control and protection of Israel that drives our policy...

David:

"Nathan, I absolutely agree that the political aspirations of Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards predisposed them to want to take certain positions such as advocating war with Sadam.

There were a total of 81 representatives and 29 Senators who were democrats that voted for the Iraq war resolution. I don't think they all voted the way they did because they want to be president.

But why did Clinton, Kerry, Edwards think that voting for war with Iraq would help them become president? The Democratic Party in recent history has generally been against war unless absolutely necessary. Why would they and the other democratic Senators and Representatives want to fight the natural instincts of their party unless they thought they had a good reason? If any of the nefarious motives given were the main reason for the Iraq war, how does supporting that help any democrat become President? Why would any of them think doing so was a good idea?

Not everyone is ignorant with incoherent babble. I would say just a little over half the comments. The others are people with the same information coming to different conclusions. Good people can disagree. If you were offended let me reassure you I was not talking about you.

Let me pose this question to any democrat or liberal to answer: why did Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, and so many other democratic Senators and Representatives tell the American public Sadam had to be removed, vote for and support the war when it seemed to be going well. Stan and I am sure others think my explanation for their behavior, that they overestimated the threat from Sadam and underestimated the difficulty, is incorrect. If I got it wrong I'm interested in hearing a good argument why."

ANSWER:
Because they are influenced by the same lobbyists, special interests, national interests and political pressures as the republicans!

Do you think we are some Democrat loving, "Impeach Bush" bumber-sticker flaunting morons? It is true that I voted for the Democrats in both George W. Bush elections, but that doesn't mean I think Bush is the worst possible leader.

I have considered the most important requirement for US industry, and the US economy, in the coming 30 years. Oil is it. Controlling it, regardless of whether we are ever going to run out, is so profitable that nothing else compares.

If I thought we were going to run out of oil, I would invest in oil. Perhaps I would try to invest in the oil companies if I thought they were planning well for the energy transition that might come next.

Regardless, oil is getting more expensive to obtain, and demand is increasing. That is what matters.

"One question we should ask ourselves is are we willing to conserve oil to free our foreign policy from it? How many patriotic folks with little magnetic yellow ribbons on their SUV's are willing to downsize to a car that gets good gas mileage?"

I think we are willing to drive smaller cars. But I think oil is more complex than that. It is a zero sum game in so far as whatever oil is available is priced according to how many people want it and how much they want. There are diminishing returns when oil becomes relatively more difficult to drill and refine.

China wants oil, and they are going to want a lot more than we do in the next 30 years. China and the United States are going to be the two most oil-dependent economies in the world. I don't think we are going to run out completely, but it is going to get more expensive to obtain.

Cars are one thing. But our entire economy runs on oil.

Wow, lot's of interesting points of view here. A couple of comments:

David, regarding Dick Cheney: Oh yes he does have more power than your average VP. A whole hell of a lot more. I'd wager the most that any VP has ever had, and man, it's scary, because this guy does pretty much anything he wants, and he doesn't care if what he does conflicts with the Constitution and the law.

If he doesn't like the facts, he just makes them up. The same week the Pentagon released its final report stating definitively that there were no ties between Sadaam and Al Qaeda, Cheney was on Rush Limbaugh saying "We know for sure there were ties between Sadaam and Al Qaeda..."

David, on Congress stopping the war: Well, they almost did, and another vote comes up in September. Do not forget that Congress - both houses - have been dominated by the Republicans since 1994, and for the last 6 years both the White House and Congress have been Republican. The Dems just got in this past November and are wrestling with how to get out of this Bush created mess without making it worse.

David, I'll say this, I honor your service in Iraq, and I agree we can't just leave. We never should have gone in. We should have locked down Afghanistan and focused our attention there. But since we went in and pulled the cork out of the bottle, just leaving is not a solution, as much as I'd like it to be. The only plan I've seen so far that makes any sense is Biden's partition plan, but even that would be a stretch. The idea that we could sweep in and establish a western style democracy was just insane.

This administration: One of the worst in American history, for a myriad of reasons. And hell yes, the laws signed by Bush are completely unconstitutional, and were handed to him by the Repub controlled congress. You might argue that these laws haven't been used against Americans, but the fact is, if they were, there's no way you'd know about it, because of the powers that are given to the President.

Why Democrats voted for the war: Fear of being labled soft on terror. Absolutely. The "War on Terror" has been Bush and Cheney's club for whatever they want. Sooner or later the Dems are going to have to take the club away. I wish more Dems had had the guts to vote against it

Lotsa oil vs. dwindling oil: Well, I don't know about the equations regarding value of oil companies based on potential reserves, but I'll say this: Our foreign policy has certainly operated for the past 30 plus years as if there's a finite supply, and I don't buy the idea that our being over there is not connected with the gooey stuff underground.

One question we should ask ourselves is are we willing to conserve oil to free our foreign policy from it? How many patriotic folks with little magnetic yellow ribbons on their SUV's are willing to downsize to a car that gets good gas mileage?

I'm flattered, I'm being quoted.

"The constitution is not a suicide pact" is a quote from a Supreme Court justice... can't remember the name.

Google Ron Paul for a fresh perspective.

"However, the constitution is not a suicide pact."
Who said that? Sounds familiar.

In any case, if we made it through a nuclear stand off with the very real threat that was the soviet union, I think we can deal with the current radicals without limiting civilian liberties.

This government uses terrorism as an excuse to horde power and secrecy in executive branch and this is MUCH more dangerous than the odd terrorist threat that drag out for political purposes on the evening news.

Another of your quotes:
"If your interpretation of the constitution means we have to sacrifice American lives then I think there is something wrong with your interpretation."

You know personally that we are sarcificing American lives as we speak on a failed policy...so perhaps some critical thinking is called for.

AND who says that the variety of failed policies in the Middle East (in the name of profits and Israel) are protecting american citizens?

I would say that these policies are definitely harmful in terms of international standing and the actual physical safety of americans at home and abroad.

david- well i appreciate your thoughtfulness.
im afraid its late and i cant take the time, insha'alla i hope to be able to post tomorrow and give links but probably not until wednesday.

for stan, i couldnt find the particular article i wanted to link, but google arab-jewish gentic links and a study last year linked arabic peoples and jewish peoples as genetic cousins.

i found it interesting at the time and posted it ad nauseum here in the past, but i dont remeber where.

it seems like common sense and now we know its scientific sense.

sorry david if i was brusqu, i was getting frustrated at political bantering im interested in hearing peoples comments on morality.

peace

Speedy123:

I have no desire to erode the constitution.

However, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

The primary responsibility of our government, and the only universal function of all governments, is to protect its citizens.

If your interpretation of the constitution means we have to sacrifice American lives then I think there is something wrong with your interpretation.

David states:

"Many countries, friend and foe eavesdrop on our phone calls."

We are not "many countries" and as some one once said:

"those who will sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"

Means do not justify ends; we are a nation of principle and law - both of which have threated in the name of imperialism and special interests favored by this administration.

The true fight to secure fabric and security of our Republic is at home!

To Gary the neo con apologist:

It is no conspiracy to recognize that different ethnic/interest groups have different and competing goals/objectives and use money and politics to acheive their ends.

Take the neo conservative movement and their undeniable connections to Israel as just one extremely sucessful example.

As for Iran, you statement proves my point....you feel that you, as an American, get to decide what form of government the sovereign Iranians should have.

We backed and installed a military dictatorship and they overthrew it in a revolution that expressed the people's will. Has there been issues since then, sure; however, this does not deny the simple fact that you and the neo cons feel that you can dictate the affair of other people and do so with only selfinterest and profits in mind.

You are one ignorant mofo, Gary - watch this video and educate yourself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

Vote Ron Paul and change the game!

Victoria- Many countries have habeus corpus laws or similar rights for their citizens. Many other countries do not. While the constitution gives Habeous Corpus rights to American citizens the right to face your accuser is far from a universal right world wide. Just because a right is granted to American citizens by the constitution, it doesn’t mean that foreigners are entitled to those same rights. For example, every American citizen 18 years and older with no felony convictions is entitled to vote for their elected representative. A citizen of France, no matter how much we like them, is not entitled to the right to vote in our elections.

I mentioned the approximately half million Iraqis who died from the UN sanctions of the 90’s in an earlier post. I certainly agree that it was a tremendous humanitarian tragedy. I don’t think the reason for the sanctions justified the price paid by the Iraqi people. However, it was the UN (pushed by the US under the Clinton administration) that imposed the sanctions. I don’t see how they were illegal.

As far as taping phone calls and keeping lists of phone records, sure I would like some privacy but I don’t see how the government doing such things is immoral. The phone companies have to keep track of your phone records just so they know how much to bill you. Many countries, friend and foe eavesdrop on our phone calls. Cell phones are a terribly unsecured means of communication. The whole world can listen in on US phone calls except our own law enforcement agencies. As long as the government is doing so to get bad guys and no one is personally profiting from it, I have no problem with it.

Absolutely, there is far more to life than oil, or money, or worldly goods.

OK, you got me, the current version of the Bible probably has not been in circulation for all of the last 2000 years.

I’ve never heard that there are over 3000 American Citizens detained without representation or right to speedy trial since 911. That would clearly be unconstitutional. Where are they all being kept?

Since you asked, let me say I thought the sanctions of the 90’s were devastating out of all proportion to the crime they were imposed for and I would have lifted them if I had the ability. In regard to the invasion, I would not have invaded Iraq. Chemical weapons are so easy to manufacture that any nation state that wants them can have them and can make them quickly. Trying to disarm enemy nations because they have chemical weapons is a futile exercise. Having said that, now that we have already gone in and broken things and Al Qeida and all sorts of other nasty foreign fighters have set up shop, I think we are morally obligated to stay and try and make things right. At least until the Iraqi people tell us they want us to leave. I have been to Iraq and I expect I will be back in the future. I am willing to leave my wife and baby girl at home because the welfare of the people of Iraq really matters to me. I have seen the bodies and carnage after a suicide bomber strikes, it is a terrible thing that overshadows their lives that a people weaker than the Iraqis could not endure. I have had friends I consider brothers lose their lives over there. I very much understand the human toll and the price we are paying in Iraq. But I believe the Iraqi people are worth it. Despite what you see on TV, our men and women over in Iraq are doing everything they can to help the Iraqi people. If any of this bothers someone that is your right, I just prefer that you be quiet and stay out of the way. There are plenty of Americans willing to volunteer to try and make a difference for the better. I think the people of Iraq deserve the best future America can help them create and one thing I do know is the Iraqi people can't yet do it on their own.

To believe that there is some melovolent force out there controlling the world and responsible for all the bad crap that ever happens be it the Zionist the CFR or the Builderburgers is nothing more than a form of lunacy.

The two groups of people chiefly responsible for the current Mess in the Middle East are the Post World War I British government that tried to weld three ethnic animosities into one government. And the Carter Administration without whom Komeini would have died of Old Age in Southern France rather than bequesthing us the monsterous regime currently mismanaging Iran.

Sorry speed123, that quote in my last post was David's.

But to the both of you, I'm not sure what your concept of supply and demand is based on.

I don't think you can judge the world oil supply by what investors do.

If there's more and more undiscovered oil, you should invest in oil stocks.

If there's less and less undiscovered oil, each company's value, especially the one's who own most of it, skyrockets, and you should still invest in oil stocks.

It's a win win, and has no applicable logic here.

David,

It just seems to me like the general concept of the "God of Abraham" is changing. Creation in six days is surely out and "evolution of species by natural selection" will probably fall before long. But the manipulation of people's minds seems to be to one or the other and a different concept just doesn't seem to be tolerated by the media. The concept of one God/Creator/Providence etc. that is not the "God of Abraham" will surely change the world and the catalyst of the Iraq War, if it goes on for 40 years or so, will probably accelerate the change.

I wonder what DNA and RNAi are going to show about the kinship of Arabs and Israelites and why we haven't heard more about that! Did they have a common father and different mother? Archelogy apparently doesn't support the Israelites being in Eqypt but does indicate they were in Babylon.

We as people have tended to believe history as it is written and now we know that governments just make that stuff up and at least some major parts of the Bible were just made up. But the corruption of governments and the people in power and how they use religion to 'control the masses' is what is probably going to tip the scales against basing too much 'on faith'.

"MOST OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE BIG OIL COMPANIES COMES FROM THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY ARE GOING TO FIND LOTS AND LOTS OF OIL IN THE FUTURE. The people that value the big oil companies are all real smart guys."

Speed123, you really have a knack for stating the oblivious.

If anyone's interested, there's a graph on the following page:

http://depletion.blogspot.com/

i think what really disturbed me about davids statements is that there seems to be no sympathy for iraqis as human beings.

if it doesnt apply to americans legally, or interrupt our lives- it seems as if it is a non- issue.

this is a question about morality- there are many other places to express political views on this forum-

im an american and i have been disturbed, upset and dismayed by what this administration is doing.

its not about red vs. blue- but right and wrong, moral vs. immoral.

there are plenty of real smart guys out there that dont value oil david.

also, id beg to differ that the bible has been in print for 2000 years.

the gutenburg press wasnt even extant until 1450, and the bible not coalesced into one manuscript until the 360s.

there are more people in the world that are motivated by other philosophies, religions and mores than just the christocentric american viewpoint.

and for the record, over 3000 american citizens have been "detained "indefinitely, without representation or right to a speedy trial since 911.

they are being held under 'secret evidence' which means only the accusers have access to the charges.

americans are in prison some over 4 years now without even being charged.

im betting they feel more than inconvenienced and greatly harmed by that particular little constitutional mishap.

do you have any opinion at all about the morality of the question of staying or pulling out?

that is the point and topic here.

your sense of entitlement and disregard for the actual people of iraq- is disquieting since that is the question and it seems sidestepped entirely.

I’ve been trying to avoid the topic of oil since it would take me a really long time to explain the economics behind the oil industry. However, the topic keeps coming up and SPEED123 is correct, there is so much oil out there I don’t know why anyone is worried about it running out. The problem with oil is that the oil market is very inelastic so when any supply little disruption occurs it causes big swings in price.

Without a long boring explanation of the oil industry and why you shouldn’t worry about civilization ending due to oil running out let me share this:

All you finance guys out there know that the market value of a firm is the present value of all the firm's current and expected future cash flows. In the case of oil companies, you derive their market value by adding the present value of their current ongoing operations, plus the present value of their existing oil reserves, plus the present value of all the future oil discoveries the company is expected to ever find but has not yet done so.

It turns out that in the case of the current market valuations of the big oil companies, the first number (PV of current ops) is rather small, the second number (PV of existing reserves) is a medium size number, the third number (PV of all the oil the company has not yet found but is expected to find) is really big. MOST OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE BIG OIL COMPANIES COMES FROM THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY ARE GOING TO FIND LOTS AND LOTS OF OIL IN THE FUTURE.

The people that value the big oil companies are all real smart guys. If you think they are wrong and there is no more oil out there then the share price of all the big oil companies is grossly overpriced. If you own any oil company shares (which you probably do if you have any money in a pension, retirement, or mutual fund) then you want to sell it before everyone else realizes there is no more oil out there. I’m certainly willing to buy it from you at whatever reduced value you think they are worth.

OK - Brian, provide proof that world oil supplies are at a critical level...I would love to see some references.

This does not mean, however, that I do not believe that we should invest heavily in alternative fuel technology.

Your statements are ignorant scare tactics similar to those saying: "they hate us for our freedom" and "we fight them there so we dont have to fight them here."

Oil is not the cause of these wars; extreme neo con ideology and corporate interests are.

As for the article that I posted, it says NOTHING about natural resources other than the fact that American companies for forbiden by law from owning them.

Read it again buddy.

David, I dont have an answer but I think you underestimate the lack of political integrity and fortitude of the Democrats...they simply do not want to be labeled by the Republicans as "soft on terrorism" or defense.

Why else would these spinless politicians, who were ELECTED for their anti war rhetoric, give in to the pressure of the president on timelines for withdrawl??

david- you seem to be under the impression that habeus corpus (which states that an accused has a right to face their accusers in person) is an american invention or right for only americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html

also, as far as iraqi deaths- sanctions alone led to the direct deats of over 600,000 iraqi womwn children and aged before we ever enacted our pre-emptive strike.

human rights violations of such an incredibly self-serving and (by international laws regarding human rights statutes) illegal-

while they may not "inconvenience "you, the issue being discussed is morality, not what makes one comfortable or slightly uncomfortable.

DAVID, If you really think that Dick Cheney has no more power than any other VP in American history, we're going to have to respectfully agree to disagree.

"Listen, there is plenty of oil to go around, therefore, no need to invade Iraq.."

Speed123, that's about as naive a comment as what the head of the U.S. Patent office said right before the turn of the 20th century.

"I think we should close the patent office because there's nothing left to invent"

I was encouraged for the human race to find out he never actually said that.

Until, of course, I saw your naive comment. C'mon, stop dragging your knuckles on the ground.

Speed123: you can try to answer my questons posted at 11:52am and 3:11pm also

Stan: Compared to everything that has happened in the last 2000 years since the Bible has been in print, Iraq is just a footnote in history in comparison. I don’t see any significant new understanding of the Bible or religious revisions as a result of Iraq. I’m sure Bush and Cheney would have much preferred to have been able to go into Iraq and remove Sadam and had our troops home in 6 months. Them saying we are going to be there past their terms in office is just them recognizing things didn’t turn out anything like they had hoped. That just means they made a mistake (a big one). It doesn’t mean they have some secret motive.

Brian: I don’t know where to begin.

First, the only way you can say Dick Cheney killed half a million Iraqis is if you include all Iraqis that have died from old age, disease, and other natural causes (which represents 90% of your number) since 2003.

Second, the troops are in Iraq with the consent of congress, both of which are now controlled by Democrats. If the Democrats really wanted to bring the troops home they just stop funding it. They do not need to over ride a presidential veto, they just don’t create a funding bill in the first place. Democrats have the power to end the war in a few months if they chose to and Cheney couldn’t do anything about it.

Third, what American has been denied the writ of Habeas Corpus? Every American has been guaranteed that right from the constitution. If someone is not protected by Habeas Corpus then it is because they are not an American citizen. The Constitution only applies to American citizens. Non-citizens are governed by extradition treaties and the Geneva Convention in war time. Cheney can’t change that.

Fourth, the constitutionality of many of those measures is tricky but what American has been inconvenienced or harmed by them. Anyways, the legality and procedures are being worked out in court and not by Cheney.

Fifth, yes we have added a good chunk to the national debt and passed many tax breaks in the last few years. However, taxes and appropriations come from bills created in either the house or senate and needs to be approved by both bodies and signed by the president. Where does the VP control any of this? Even if he did, so what? It just means the government is wasting taxpayer dollars. Does it surprise you that politicians do that? If that bothers you then I think that is an argument for smaller government so politicians have less of your money to waste.

Don’t get me wrong, Cheney is a powerful guy but he has no more power than any other VP in US history.

Ben: Take a stab at my questions posted at 11:52am and 3:11pm.

Listen, there is plenty of oil to go around, therefore, no need to invade Iraq...

This is about Israel and the neo con corporate utopia in Iraq - ps corporations cant touch the natural resources of Iraq but can control reconstruction and services and industries...

The oil claim is a way to deflect the causes of this war...wake up and stop watching Syriana.

The largest concern for the well-being of the large industrial corporations of the United States is energy security. It is worth more than money, since oil is ultimately a zero-sum game. I have read oil production projections for Iraq. Iraq is juicy.

Energy hegemony doesn't come without a price. Mostly, Iraqis are paying that price. I don't think this war was ever going to do any good for the Iraqis.

The U.S. couldn't just buy Iraq off like we do with Saudi Arabia. China would be just as successful at that game. And China is set to be the largest consumer of oil in the world. Iraq was a viable target.

The burden of proof is on anyone else to provide a more elegant explanation. Removing Saddam, splitting up Iraq (with no ultimate objective?) or eradicating WMD don't suffice, since explaining why those ideas justified invading Iraq requires more complex reasons than the most obvious explanation: OIL

OIL OIL OIL

That is the single most important commodity in the world.

no harm no foul stan- i was taken aback by your conjecture which was rationalized whith a completely innacurate and hence misleading historical fact-

you stated-

"What if Israel is also just a tool of the group that is really controlling things? They were rather obviously around long before Israel came into existence."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

indeed the first sentence is conjecture.

the second sentence is absolute nonsense.

iraqi borders were artificially drawn by the british in 1932- hence they could not obviously be around long before israel-

the zionist movement to israel pre-dated the formation of iraqi borders and the country we know of as iraq today.

Who's the most dangerous man in the world?

To dispel the myth that Kim Jong-Il is a stark raving lunatic, NNDB wrote a sobering article in which they described him in this way:

"As sane as any leader with unchecked power."

What a perfect transition to Dick Cheney.

Now Cheney doesn't exactly possess all the eccentricities of Kim Jong-Il, but then, Kim Jong-Il doesn't possess all the nuclear warheads that Dick Cheney does.

On Meet the Press, Cheney said "We just can't allow reckless leaders like Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to get their hands on a weaponized nuke...nor allow anyone who poses a clear threat our way of life succeed and proliferate".

It seems he's made just one exemption to that; himself.

In less than a decade, Dick Cheney has killed nearly half a million Iraqis, according to some sources, and over 3500 Americans.

He's also managed to annihilate one of the most prolific founding principles of the American way of life; the writ of Habeas Corpus.

Also, remember the good old days when something came between the third amendment and the fifth amendment?

Not there anymore. In its place, America's new favorite pastime; domestic spying, illegal wiretapping, and mass collections of private data such as phone records and emails.

Wait, there's more. We've also been unshackled from those pesky Geneva Convention treaties, making room for the torture stylings of, you guessed it, the one and only, Dick.

To further preserve the American way of life, Cheney's reign has racked up $3.7 trillion in foreign debt, given a $1 trillion tax break to billionaires, and there's more.

Instead of investing $32 billion in alternative energy to help solve our addiction to oil, he decided to save the oil companies from a $29 billion tax increase to ensure THEIR addiction to oil.

And he makes it all look so easy.

Recently, to avoid any possible accountability for his involvement in anything over the past 7 years, Dick Cheney has created a completely new branch of government; of Dick Cheney, by Dick Cheney,and for Dick Cheney.

That's right, a leader with unchecked power.

Sound like anyone you know?

David,

The general concept in Genesis of incremental design changes I consider the generally correct concept. The flood is something else; there was just too much water to come and go. But folks want to believe The Bible and it has served humanity well up till now. The Iraq War however is so bad that I believe it will gradually result in a new analysis and understanding of the Bible, and maybe all of the Abraham religions. That may be one of the many unintended consequences of the Iraq War.

I don't think or mean to imply that Bush hears voices in the normal way that that concept is thought of. But when Bush tells the world he talks/tells/listens/whatever with/to a higher authority people should pay attention (in my opinion)! Another example is the sign said "Mission Accomplished" which they let people assume meant the Iraq objective was accomplished; but as far as I know Bush has never said he was going to end the war. In fact he has said it will end after his term of office. Cheney said the election wouldn't matter and the war would go on. Words matter and people should pay attention to what is said.

Stan: I just wanted to clarify... are you saying that the Bible cannot be interpreted in any way other than literally and that the President hears voices?

To Victoria:

I really didn't/don't understand just where you are coming from or just how/why you differently interpreted what I intended to say - and why the post generated such a reaction.

I don't recall postulating a theory. I presented some "what if" questions and added some observable observations.

It was Kipling that said "I keep six honest serving men (They taught me all I knew): Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who".

It is an observable fact that the universe and all that's in it was not created in six calendar days about 6000 years ago; and if the universe wasn't created in six days then 'the God of Abraham' didn't write the Ten Commandments as that is the basis of 4th Commandment; and it all unravels from there.

oh yah, my last post is directed not just to Nathan but anyone who has a good answer

Nathan, I absolutely agree that the political aspirations of Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards predisposed them to want to take certain positions such as advocating war with Sadam.

There were a total of 81 representatives and 29 Senators who were democrats that voted for the Iraq war resolution. I don't think they all voted the way they did because they want to be president.

But why did Clinton, Kerry, Edwards think that voting for war with Iraq would help them become president? The Democratic Party in recent history has generally been against war unless absolutely necessary. Why would they and the other democratic Senators and Representatives want to fight the natural instincts of their party unless they thought they had a good reason? If any of the nefarious motives given were the main reason for the Iraq war, how does supporting that help any democrat become President? Why would any of them think doing so was a good idea?

David,

"...our nations decision makers overestimated the threat posed by Sadam and underestimated how difficult post-war Iraq would be."

Shakespeare in Othello observed: "Take note, take note o' world; to be direct and honest is not safe". That is no less true today than when it was first observed.

Some no doubt had to "go along, to get along"; others do doubt had to comply with their boss/superior's position or move along; some were simply brainwashed; some didn't do their homework and continued to vote as indicated they should; some were afraid of the reaction of their constitutents. In the case of the "real decision makers" it would appear they simply had an agenda. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that Bush/Cheney thoughtfully weighed the data presented and sought advice from those that "had been there done that". So letting them off with overestimating and underestimating is giving them too much credit in my opinion. So someone, somewhere in a position of influence simply 'had an agenda' it would seem. People don't pay enough attention to exactly what Bush says. He said/indicated/implied that he consulted with "a highter authority", or another 'father' or both; it has been presented that he meant God but he never said God that I am aware of.

Stabalizing the mid east is a job only psychitrists are qualified to do. They have the know-how and experience to run the mental instution. Religion, all religions make people insane.

The problem in the mid east, Iraq in particular is the reliance on psychologists who stabalize by agreeing with the nuts and encourage them to continue their ridiculious behavior rather than break out the straight jackest.

SPEED, those people who had Freedman's capitalistic utopia in mind for Iraq made the same mistake Hitler and Himilar made. They don't, (didn't at least) understand how many people 25 million is and how difficult it is to deal with each one individually, even if all one intends to do is kill them.

I think your candidate stands the same chance of becomming president as the chance the mid east will become stable. Have you discovered zero yet? Time to put it to work.

David: "Let me pose this question to any democrat or liberal to answer: why did Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, and so many other democratic Senators and Representatives tell the American public Sadam had to be removed, vote for and support the war when it seemed to be going well. Stan and I am sure others think my explanation for their behavior, that they overestimated the threat from Sadam and underestimated the difficulty, is incorrect. If I got it wrong I'm interested in hearing a good argument why."

As someone, who may end up voting for one of these people, as an alternative to a greater evil, you have a right to have your question answered. They voted the way they did because they felt it was in their political interest to do so. They wanted to be President some day and it appeared at that time it was necessary to vote as they did to achieve their goals. Karl Rove was brilliant to time the vote on the invasion as he did. I don't respect any of them for it. Maybe Barack Obama would be a good choice.

Lets settle the honesty question about Bush without unproven positions.

At some point, President Bush learned and completely understood that there was no link between 9/11 and the government of Iraq. At some point, President Bush learned and completely understood Iraq posed no significant threat to the United States. At some point he knew the details behind the outing of a CIA agent. At some point he realized how much our government really did know about the possible attack on 9/11.

Never once, on any of these issues, did he come forward to the American public and make an effort to set the record straight in a fashion that compared with his efforts to have us believe otherwise.

If my young son has me believe something, with emphasis and passion, then realizes that what he convinced me of us untrue, then makes no effort to correct his error, I would tell my son to his face that he is acting dishonestly. To continue that behavior intentionally defines him as a dishonest person.

Read the transcript to the State of the Union before the invasion. Find me a speech comparable to that telling the American people he was wrong on every suggestion of why we should be afraid and why we should bring violence upon a foreign people who never harmed us.

Find me a speech where he discusses his promise to fire anyone behind the CIA leak and lays out the truth behind the whole story.

Find me a speech in which President Bush explains that Saddam Hussein was fighting Jihadist influence in the North coming out of Iran, an area we protected under our "no fly" zones, and that any delusion that 9/11 and Iraq were related was a misconception our leaders perpetuated.

Find me a speech suggesting more open government and disclosure.

Watch to see how he handles Scooter Libby.

And specifically to Tom above, President Bush, in his debate with Al Gore, said he would not have become involved in Rwanda, that we in fact did not make a mistake. President Bush said we did the right thing in Rwanda. Read the transcript of the debate. President Clinton said it was the worst mistake of his Presidency. It was before the election when Bush was selling the idea he would not participate in "nation building".

No, he is not moral, nor is he honest. You will agree with this sentiment, the moment you can imagine being in a shopping center with your children and bombs are dropped on you, killing everyone you love, only to then learn, while lying in the hospital with your face burned off, then hearing President Bush saying that there was a report of a bad man in the shopping center earlier in the day, and that he is just "protecting our freedoms".

There may be geopolitical reasons to hope the United States holds on to Iraq as a controllable ally, a backup to a vulnerable Saudi Arabia, a strategic partner protecting our economic life blood from possible revolution in that part of the world, but there certainly will never be moral or honest reasons stated, regardless of the final outcome.

well hillary and edwards, i think youre being too kind in your reasoning for them. however john kerry voted for it because he wanted to be able to send the soldiers into battle with the proper equipment.
that vote has come back to bite hillary in the behind, as it should.

everyone here is coming from the assumption that this administration and the neocons somehow actually desire stability in that region.

i think that is not necessarily the case at all.

who has benefitted from the instability there?

the very people who initiated it.

and the neocons who have israels best interest at heart.

is it good for israel? well, it definitely has been in this case.

also, while everyone is claiming they want democracies in that region, the party that won the last election is currently under attack from israel.

hamas won the elections fair and square.

how is it that israel is currently bombing themback to the stone age without a whisper of outcry when they are only trying t collect their rightful due, an election fairly won by a mandate of the people.

and stan, before you rebut with some more of your revisionist historical perspective (iraq rather obviously around long before israel)

generally, when one is called out and proven ridiculously wrong one has 2 courses to take.

a person of some intellectual honor retracts an obviously incorrect theory.

or you can ignore it and hope no one else notices.

you have certainly tainted your credibility in this forum.

Not everyone is ignorant with incoherent babble. I would say just a little over half the comments. The others are people with the same information coming to different conclusions. Good people can disagree. If you were offended let me reassure you I was not talking about you.

Let me pose this question to any democrat or liberal to answer: why did Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, and so many other democratic Senators and Representatives tell the American public Sadam had to be removed, vote for and support the war when it seemed to be going well. Stan and I am sure others think my explanation for their behavior, that they overestimated the threat from Sadam and underestimated the difficulty, is incorrect. If I got it wrong I'm interested in hearing a good argument why.

David, you wrote back on June 22:

"Did it ever occur to you that the simple explanation is that too many of our nations decision makers overestimated the threat posed by Sadam and underestimated how difficult post-war Iraq would be."

And now you imply everyone but you is ignorant with incoherent babble and imply that you alone are astute!!

The statements are incompatible and opposites.

By the way. The results of relying on "sacred scriptures" leading to fiascos like Iraq should be enough for anyone with any brains at all to say there is something bad wrong with sacred scriptures.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is probably not the answer to what is wrong with sacred scriptures. I could be wrong you know. The big money dose go to those who lead the multitudes to hell but those who set out to lead the multitudes to hell ended up in Iraq, this time around. I'll wager more than one GI has described Iraq as hell.

What we have here is a failure to do something. Iraq was planned before Bush even go elected. What should concern Americans more than anything else is who or what was behind it.

Religions are absolute dictatorships. Herman Goering scored a bulls eye with, "Nazi government conforms 100% with that of the Catholic Church and the USSR governments." On that foundation, a no brainer, we can build a picture of both what is in progress in Iraq and the sad state of affairs with our own government. Dictator is in the node of governmental gravity for no government beats the benivalent dictatorship. Everybody wants one of those.

What's the difference between the Catholic Church and the Baptist for example? One has a dictator, the pope at it's head while the Baptists are all independent operators, fiefdoms run by absolute dictators known as ministers. Ayatollahs are identically the same thing as Baptist ministers, little dictators. When Saddam was removed from power the power immediately, under gravity fell to the Ayatollahs.

Iraq is not A war but rather a donny brook, bar room brawl with temporary coalitions against other temoprary coalitions and as many fighting governments as there are parishes or whatever Muslims call their little dictatorships. Small wonder our generals looking to fight a single organized army have "that far away lool in the eye."

Sorry folks but I can't stop laughing at the stupidity. Stupid is the heart and soul of humor. Got to give "W" credit.

Paul H:

I'm pretty sure we are on opposite sides of the debate but I have to say your last post was pretty good. Most of the other comments here are incoherent babble.

It is very hard to find a rational, well informed strong anti Bush critic so if that is you and you are still out there I am interested in hearing your views on how America got into the situation we are in in Iraq and what you think we should do from here.

Some of these posts are interesting. One person states that the Iraq war was not a mistake and then also says that it is not certain Iraq has changed for the better or if it has gotten worse. He then goes on to say that final results are out of our hands anyway.

By what logic is a war started under false reasoning and misstated "facts" not a mistake - especially when it cannot be said to have made anything better? It can, however, be said to have cost at least tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, 3,500 American military members, and hundreds of American contractors. If this is a success, one wonders how failure would be described.

Someone also said that the United States had to attack Iraq because Iraq was failing to comply with United Nations mandates. The strongest proponents of this war of choice are the neo-conservatives who speak most disparagingly of the United Nations. Starting a war with Iraq was certainly not because of our respect for the UN.

Others have said that the United States attacked because we had bad intelligence in early 2003. We were virtually certain that Iraq had no nuclear weapons at that time and that they might have had chemical and biological weapons. Did we really believe that Iraq was going to come gunning for us with chemicals and germs? Would they use their non-existent navy or their destroyed air force?

Nothing justified this war, but the reasoning used by many in these posts provides an understanding of the logic used by many in electing a man like Mr. Bush as president.

A contributor takes the position that we have one million troops that could currently be committed to Iraq. He is doing a great disservice to the military if he fails to bring this to their attention.

The American public is consistently told by political and military leaders that we are very close to the limit of our resources - supplies, money, and troops.

Whatever total number we have among all military branches, we already have commitments in locations other than Iraq. We are probably unable to use most Navy and Air Force members as ground troops in Iraq. We try to give people as much time out of combat as they spend under combat conditions. Each person in combat needs support troops for backup and in reserve.

We do not have a million spare military members; we have almost none.

Did you read my first post?? Same as that Harper's article. Essentially, the following:

This is all about oil. The first draft of the Iraq oil law was written in 2002-2003 by Bearingpoint. Essentially, as you've probably heard Bush say, it's a revenue sharing plan for the Iraq people.
What he doesn't say is that Iraq ownership is only 1/5th and the remaining 4/5ths will be owned by ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP (I understand now why Tony Blair supported the Iraq invasion)

The Iraq government was forced to sign on or the U.S. threatened to pull any reconstruction efforts.

Some of the detail may vary, but this is all fact.

I don't advocate what Bush and the NEOCONS did. I think it's tragic. I think it's the worst administration in history.

Just because I say it's all about oil, and ultimately, survival of the fittest in a dwindling oil economy, doesn't mean I defend the action.

It' ok if you disagree about peak oil, and the consequences. You can disagree with my assessment that we're beginning to see some strategic positioning via military action poorly disguised as freedom-fighting.

I firmly believe if you look at the big picture, bigger than blaming a religious movement, it's all about power. Oil is power. In the coming decade,
the less oil there is, the more powerful the faction who owns it.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Brian,

Just like Ron Paul gave Rudy a reading list so he could read up on the conquences of our ME policy, I will give you a reading list as well.

However, since you seem to be a bit slow, I will limit it to one article:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

Nice come back, Brain...did it take all of the time to write that your were you busy foaming at the mouth while watching 300?

PS - I only write under this name.

Durvas:

Notice that I only said Al Queada in IRAQ. In Afghanistan they are a much bigger factor and no one with any sense doubts Al Queada's role in 9/11. But this conversation is about Iraq, and in Iraq Al Queada is comparitivily minor compared to Afghanistan which is where we ought to have our focus on.

You are right about the morality of nations.

We criticized Saddam over and over about using chemical weapons on his own people.

So the question becomes: did we want him to use the chemical weapons technology that we gave him?

The only answer is, "yes", we wanted him to use them. Why would we give him the technology if we didn't want him to use it?

Also, when we drop a bomb from an airplane we hope it lands where we want and we hope that among the dead are some "bad guys". Hoping is not knowing so another way to put it is when we drop a bomb from an airplane we don't know exactly where it will land and we don't know exacly who it will kill, but it will kill. How is that different from terrorism? Is it because we can blame the bomb for not landing and exploding just right? You would have to be insane to expect that.

Saddam was a madman yet we devote incredible amounts of brainpower, money, and effort to make submarines that can sit completely quiet on the bottom of the ocean for years on end who's only job is to ensure the world becomes a radioactive wasteland if it doesn't hear a reply to the question "is everything ok up there?"

We can spend half a trillion dollars on a war of choice but we have to charge interest on loans to citizens who want to go to college.

speed123, there are 4 or 5 posts that support your "It's the jews!!" theory.

Unfortunately, they were all posted by you.

I believe Bush told us to do our part by SHOPPING after 911.

As for why didnt it work...

It is because the entire war was not liberation of Iraqis but the subjegation of Iraqis...

The neo con radical theory was to spread a form of hyper capitalism - a capitalist utopia.

In this regard, Wolfowitz and the neo con movement are much more similar to the Jacobin or Bolsheviks.

They hated the "nation" of Iraq sought its destruction and wanted to rebuild it with their master plan...to bad the Iraqis decided that this was not in thier interest and fought for their freedom, their culture and religion.

Iraqis are freedom fighters and we are occupiers. Neither the Iraqis or our troops (lower classes) benefit from this arrangement - only the corporations and that one "ally" in the region.

Vote Ron Paul - America for the American people, not lobbists, think-tanks and corporations!

Come now. Don't tell me there are crooks and liars in DC? I'm shocked what with America's pastor, Billy personally crowning the president, shoved his plate under his nose and he coughed up the doe ray me. Bush did speak to a higher power and call upon the Almighty for divine guidance before invading Iraq. There is the small matter of which supernatural being he like Moses made the deal with. Moses had the same experience, Isarelites still haven't made it to the promised land. And as I'm sure you suspect they're calling somewhere else the promised land. Faulty map reading no doubt. One good fault leads to another.

"Go to your churches, temples, synagogues and mosques and pray" - GW Bush, 9-11-2001. A blind man could see Iraq coming.

"The question is where do we go from here?"

Hey BGONE, good article, eh...

Things will take care of themselves after we leave...the American republic was not created to become an imperial force.

What do we do from here?

VOTE RON PAUL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

SPEED, I read your article and have a simple question: Why didn't that work? After all, capitalism is the only way to fly isn't it?

Wars are won on information and lost on misinformation. I can't think of being more misinformed than to think the war was over when it had just begun. Now take Iraq for example.

They whapped the hornet's nest. Their intentions were good, conformed to Milt Freedman's version of how to run a railroad. The nest fell to the ground but the hornets are still very much alive.

Shoddy administration? Stupid moves? What have you but what has been done has been done. The question is where do we go from here?

Don't you think identifying the hornets, locating them and dealing with them is in order or should we just say Iraq was a big mistake and get out. Oh yeah! Impeach the chimp that got us into it? Who supported him, was instrumental in him getting elected and thus being in a position to make such a horrible mistake, really horrible if you're dead or have a lifelong and life shortnening injury.

I can sum that article up: Hornet honey sho is hard to harvest.

calling it a "conspiracy theory" as a way to debunk the idea is pretty simplistic and similar to saying that any one who criticizes Israel is anit semetic.

The neo con movement is an intellectual movement that has ties to the left and was started by Kristol and Podhoretz - both influnced by Strauss at the Univ of Chicago. This is a classic leftist Jewish movement and it is a FACT!

The major policy guys are Wolfie, Feith and Perle along with Abrhams, Adlman, Libby etc. Throw into that the pundits for the major papers like Hitchens, Brooks, Freidman, Krathenhammer, Satfire, Applebaum, Cohen etc. etc. etc.

While this was also about corporate interest involved in the aftermath, the initiation of this war was MAJORLY influenced by the neo con movement and a desire to "defend" Israel.

This is a Jewish movement and it is in line with geo politics and self interest that a major factor in wanting to pre empt Iraq is to defend the Israeli state.

Why do you think they are now targeting Iran??? For our national security?? Yeah, right!

Come on!!! Dont be so brainwashed by PC propaganda as not to be able to see and state the obvious.

The article highlights the absolute historical truth of countries that engineer a war justifying their actions by distorting the facts. After all, who wants to fight an unjust war?

The intelligence used to convince the US public that Iraq had WMD's was deliberatley cherry picked, and each time faulty sources were exposed the Administration was allowed to profer even more ludicrous examples without due diligence being exercised. The deliberately misleading assertions that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 and the hand wringing about what a monster Saddam was were also no more than calculated gambits to get the public on side. A monster he was, but no worse than Mugabe in Zimbabwe or the current despot's in regime's around the world.

Oil was the goal, but don't flatter this Bush Aministration with assertions of cunning. They simply thought it would be easy. The problem with Neocon hubris is that it ultimately deludes its own proponents. Unfortunately for America it must now pay for the inability of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle et al to understand another simple historical truth. A people who do not want you in their country cannot be forced to accept your presence. Especially when time and casualties mean nothing to those who control the factions.

Bush has become Islam Extremist's greatest recruiting sergeant.

Hey, sorry, Anonymous at 6:41 is me.

OK, so Speed, according to you, the NY Times, Hollywood and the White House Neocons (whom you say are all Jewish) are all part of a huge Zionist conspiracy to make Israel #1 and that's the reason for the debacle in Iraq...

Sounds like "None Dare Call it Conspiracy", a "Jewish bankers control everything" book from the early '70's. Every hiccup in world politics was supposedly planned in advance.

Hmmm. Nope. Sorry. The Zionist Conspiracy Theory comes up Grade A manure on my BS meter.

I can understand wanting an explanation for one of the most stupid foreign policy endeavors of the past 100 years or so, but I really think it is as simple as arrogant, stupid people coming up with incredibly stupid ideas and then amazingly, convincing the American people to go along with it. Now we are stuck in a damned if we do, damned if we don't mess.

I do agree that these lame brains have rattled the saber at Iran, which given the failure of the Iraq situation and the condition of our military would be funny if it weren't such an out and out tragedy.

One conspiracy theory I will tip my hat to, and that's ol' Dick Cheney taking care of his cronies in Big Biz. Halliburton (and its subsidiary KBR) has raped us all for billions of dollars billed from no bid govt. contracts in Iraq.

Let's see, who used to be the CEO of Halliburton? Some guy named Chewy...no...Chomsky (no, not him)...Cheney! That's the guy!

Also Bri,

While you are getting your propaganda on while watching 300 and Syriana...try reading this article on the economic and political events after the invasion.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

No conspiracy, it is called geo politics and a HUGELY powerful Israeli lobby in the US.

I can only assume you will watch Syriana for the 23 time before responding...see you in two hours.

PS - Iraq has been shot to hell and what are these neo con nazis doing now? Targeting IRAN!

On that thought, perhaps you are getting pumped up by watching "300" more anti Muslim, anti-Iran propaganda from Hollywood...

Before I weigh in on speed123's conspiracy splattering, I urge everyone, I mean everyone, to read what he wrote.

And post your comments.

Thanks

stan- your statement-
~~~~~~~"What if Israel is also just a tool of the group that is really controlling things? They were rather obviously around long before Israel came into existence."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

wow! could you possibly reinvent history to serve your agenda more?

NO- THIS IS THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS THEORY IVE EVER HEARD YET.

from wikipedia- the formation of iraq in 1932
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Main article: British Mandate of Mesopotamia

British troops entering Baghdad.At the end of World War I, the League of Nations granted the area to the United Kingdom as a mandate. It formed three former Ottoman vilayets (regions): Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra into a single country.

For three out of four centuries of Ottoman rule, Baghdad was the seat of administration for the vilayets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra. During the mandate, British colonial administrators ruled the country, and through the use of British armed forces, suppressed Arab and Kurdish rebellions against the occupation. They established the Hashemite king, Faisal, who had been forced out of Syria by the French, as their client ruler. Likewise, British authorities selected Sunni Arab elites from the region for appointments to government and ministry offices.."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

my god man get a clue-

are you truly that oblivious to history?

zionism PREDATED the formation of the borders of what is today known as Iraq!

this is by far the most backward uninformed bizarre ignorance of history ive encountered yet.

Partial answer for Brian,

Did Hitler have oil or did he make do converting coal? Do we have coal? Who helped him convert coal to petro? So the destruction of Iraq wasn't oil for national defense.

SPEED123 is getting closer. But was Pearle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, etc. just also agents is another question.

What if "the force" has been in existence since "The Law" was written and has been gaining traction ever since and laying waste the Constitution of the United States of America is now the real objective?

Got news for you Brian, the governments in the middle east will still sell us oil if we are in the region or not. And there is no shortage on hand so no need to take over the region.

Watch syriana one too many times? This is exactly what the media and hollywood want you to believe.

This was a war planned and implimented by the NEOCONs - which just happens to be a jewish intellectual movement started by Kristol, Strauss and Podhoretz.

Funny that the number 2 and 3 guys at the Pentagon (in charge of intel and planning) are also Jewish neo cons...Wolfowitz and Feith.

This was an attempt at radical revolution in the mid east to reshape the region so that Israel is the only power left standing.

GET REAL and stop believing the hollywood/NYTs hype! These outlets also believed in the revoluationary mission of the neo cons and willingly sold the war to the American People.

Take back the country from special interests! Did you know that the Federal Reserve which prints our money and determines fiscal policy is a PRIVATE BANK?

Ron Paul will abolish the fed if he is elected!

MASS, the nation that gains from spending our nation's dollars and the lives of our sons and daughters, tragically, is the USA. Please see my posts about the goal of the Iraq invasion: OIL.

I'm not sure why some people don't understand that.

The biggest threat to our National Security is the rapidly depleting oil supply. You can't make more oil.

Aside from the economy, our military can't operate without oil. Think about it-- jets, ships, tanks, missiles--bombs--all arms are made with oil.

What happens if our military becomes immobile?

We need to ask more 'what if' and 'why' questions.

What if Israel is also just a tool of the group that is really controlling things? They were rather obviously around long before Israel came into existence.

What if George Bush had a type of "signing statement" (or had his fingers crossed) when he took the oath of office as President of the United States of America? What would he be doing differently if he was in fact defending the Constitution of the United States of America; or trying to destroy the Constitution of the United States of America?

Why did 'they' need another Pearl Harbor? Surely the purpose of the first Pearl Harbor was to take by force the United States of America!! Was the explanation of a need for motivation just more crap like all the rest 'they' put out.

What if it is the Constitution of the United States of America that is really the target and not the people of America?

James Anderson asks a very valid question,who gains from spending our nation's dollars and the lives of our sons and daughters.Well,let's see.
USA is losing,uk is losing,Iraq is losing,All Middle East countries excep one are losing.The only and the main beneficiary of this ugly war is Israel and the AIPAC who keep pressuring the neocons to contine with this ugly war as long as they can.In fact this is an Israeli war fought with US blood and US taxpayer's money.

In response to:

"GARYD:If you need oil - which isn't near as finite as you seem to think Two major finds in the last year or two, one in the Gulf of Mexico that depending on whose math you by will raise US oil reserves between 40 and 60 percent and another of the East Coast of India that is neearly as large."

Please consider the following:

The world consumes 85 million barrels a day. Chevron's recent find in the Gulf of Mexico is estimated at 15 billion barrels. Do the math.

That's enough for 176 days-roughly 6 months. Even if you add that to the supply in East coast India, it's only enough oil for a year.

I don't mind an intelligent debate about how finite a resource oil is, but please, do as I do.
Base your thoughts on facts.

Right on SPEED. 9-11-2001 came as a result of us occupying a Muslim nation, THE USA.

Removing Saddam was probably a big mistake. He ran Iraq the only way a Muslim nation can be run with anything close to order. Now you can talk about oil and it's influence on Bush policy. France and Russia were doing fine with Iraqi oil, too good to suit big oil.

Religion makes people insane. When all they have for an education is a pack of lies they've memorized and faithed you get what's happening in Iraq. 10 years is what the generals say before the people who now, not before clearly support al-qaida will feel enough hurt to decide to stop. The decision is in the hands of the people of Iraq. Their right to self determination does not include the right to join our enemies. They're not INNOCENT bystanders but participants. They get that from their religion.

BTY, Don't free elections cured all problems? Wasn't Ronald Regan the greatest president we ever had? He's the only Republican president that ever won a foreign war, the invasion of the tiny island of Grenada. For love of Jesus and fear of Almighty God.

Who in their right mind ever thought this war wasn't about getting something Iraq has and we need to stave off economic collapse - OIL. Forget the Bush and MSM propaganda about freedom and democracy and the childish blather from those befogged by religion, this is a resource war. Google "cheney peak oil"

The Bush supporters and warmongers are in a bit of a dilemma regarding lies. Because the choice is: Bush lied, or Bush is an idiot. Myself, I'm a compromiser - I think Bush lied and he is an idiot, too.

Niebuhr's point is an excellent one. There are structural reasons that nation's don't operate morally abroad - they operate to promote their interests. There is nothing nefarious about that - quite the contrary. Nations are not moral entities, but practical ones. However, once a course of action is decided upon, one can ask whether the means towards it is immoral, or whether the goal itself is immoral. There is nothing immoral about the U.S. wanting to exert control over oil in the Middle East. But there is something gravely immoral about the means that the U.S. has chosen to this end.

The Iraq war is an oddity, insofar as the U.S. won it before it lost it. It won the regime change it sought. It lost, and will lose, subsequent control over the country. Disguising that control as 'democracy' is pretty much a joke. Look at how the U.S. disrespects the elemental sovereignty of Iraq. Recently, the Americans kidnapped Iranian diplomats on Iraqi soil and - in spite of the demand of the Iraqi government - has refused to give them up. Look how the U.S. has set up Jim Crow laws in Iraq. If a mercenary or an American soldier harms or steals from an Iraqi, the Iraq has no recourse in an Iraqi court. But if an Iraqi harms an american or mercenary, the Americans can imprison (and most likely will torture) the Iraqi. Applying the word democracy to this is much like the Soviets applying the term "socialist democracy' to what they were doing in Afghanistan.

So what will serve American interests going forward in Iraq? Undoubtedly, withdrawal. Here the question becomes, what is the most moral means to that end? I think it is changing completely the emphasis of the American presence in Iraq - calling for unconditional peace talks between all sides, making a good faith effort to disband and send back the mercenaries, auditing the "reconstruction" accounts and giving back to the Iraqis the massive amount of money stolen from them, and using the peace talks in Iraq to start a general detente with Syria and Iran in the region. We should strive to have zero American troops in Iraq by the beginning of 2009. That is something the Democratic congress can bring about, if it wants to.

BGONE - you fear monger....

Islamic Imperialism??? Seems to me that WE are over occupying several Muslim countries with troops and puppet govs.

WE are the Imperialists and they are simply fighting foreign occupiers you fear spewing, war promoting, neo con apologist!

PS - Vote Ron Paul and led American back to sanity!

The ONLY candidate who is completely anti-war is Republican Ron Paul.

ALL other dems and repubs WILL have military bases in Iraq and all in in favor of ANOTHER aggressive action against IRAN. All bow down to AIPAC and other special interests that have corrupted our system and democracy.

Take this country back from special interests and vote for the ONLY candidate with integrity: Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Saying we're in Iraq for oil alone is as ridiculious as saying WW2 was fought to get Japanese automobiles and German rocket technology. The Conquistadors did set out to plunder the gold. When you've returned that gold to it's rightful owners now used to hold your savior's precious body and blood you can get moral about Iraqi oil. In the mean time we need some leadership at the top capable of UNITING the country to defeat Islamic Imperialism.

When you're finished surgically removing the extremist only those who want to live will be left alive. Oil deals are a given along with freedom, justice and the American way for greater Islam,, just like Imperial Japan and those gas efficient automobiles. The American way comes complete with freedom from religion, the need to kill one's self in the name of God, a supernatural being that lives in a ball of fire, remarkably akin to Devil.

Yeah David, now take 9-11 for easy example of religious intolerance. A bit unsightly too as well as bloody and expensive.

Iraq is now ripe to become al-qaida's new headquarters. They're winning the war while we're Monday morning quarterbacking and worried about the moralaity of the situation.

Sorry more like occam's scatter gun if the only thing we were worried about was oil then going to war was the dumbest idea since the left fell in love with the Clinton's.

If you need oil - which isn't near as finite as you seem to think Two major finds in the last year or two, one in the Gulf of Mexico that depending on whose math you by will raise US oil reserves between 40 and 60 percent and another of the East Coast of India that is neearly as large - the move is to make nice with Saddam not take him out.

please do some research before you judge subject matter you may not be familiar with. Fair?

Google the following:

Peak Oil, Hubbert's law, the post-oil economy.

Climate change, fossil fuels, world oil supply.

Inefficiencies of current alternative energy to replace the finite oil supply, biomass, biofuels, ethanol, solar, wind, natural gas, coal to liquid

Iraq Oil Law

It is not just oil...it is also AIPAC, neo cons and geo politics.

Vote RON PAUL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

Where do you all come up with all this?

Brian:

You are correct; usually the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. So what is all this conspiracy stuff about peak oil, oil companies hording energy technology, and the US trying to steal Iraq's oil wealth? Did it ever occur to you that the simple explanation is that too many of our nations decision makers overestimated the threat posed by Sadam and underestimated how difficult post-war Iraq would be.

BGONE:

Religious intolerance is just as unseemly as gender, sexual, or racial intolerance.

occam's razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.

This is all about oil. The first draft of the Iraq oil law was written in 2002-2003 by Bearingpoint. Essentially, as you've probably heard Bush say, it's a revenue sharing plan for the Iraq people.
What he doesn't say is that Iraq ownership is only 1/5th and the remaining 4/5ths will be owned by ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP (I understand now why Tony Blair supported the Iraq invasion)

The Iraq government was forced to sign on or the U.S. threatened to pull any reconstruction efforts.

Some of the detail may vary, but this is all fact.

Peak oil is around the corner and without oil, our economy collapses. And all the alt. energy proposals, coal to gas, solar, ethanol, hydro, nuclear won't amount to much. Even still, guess who has cornered the market on all that new technology? The oil companies.

This last decade in American history will prove to be as profound as the first decade in American history.

The first, profoundly good, the most recent, profoundly bad.

occam's razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.

This is all about oil. The first draft of the Iraq oil law was written in 2002-2003 by Bearingpoint. Essentially, as you've probably heard Bush say, it's a revenue sharing plan for the Iraq people.
What he doesn't say is that Iraq ownership is only 1/5th and the remaining 4/5ths will be owned by ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP (I understand now why Tony Blair supported the Iraq invasion)

The Iraq government was forced to sign on or the U.S. threatened to pull any reconstruction efforts.

Some of the detail may vary, but this is all fact.

Peak oil is around the corner and without oil, our economy collapses. And all the alt. energy proposals, coal to gas, solar, ethanol, hydro, nuclear won't amount to much. Even still, guess who has cornered the market on all that new technology? The oil companies.

This last decade in American history will prove to be as profound as the first decade in American history.

The first, profoundly good, the most recent, profoundly bad.

We're being driven, not lead, by a pack of crooked liars that get their authority from the biggest lie ever told, the Bible.

It's a proved hoax. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and while you're doing business with Lucifer throw in a perfectly good country, the disUnited States of America. The big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell.

I agree Rev. Money is what it's all about. Hope your family members involved in the fighting come back in one piece both physically and mentally. I don't envy them their task and know it must be done. There's nothing pretty about killing expecially when it's bombs blowing people into pieces.

There were no WMDs. Al-qaida was not there. That's ancient history. We're there now right or wrong and so is al-qaida. The war is with them and their multitude of sister groups intent on establishing the kingdom of Allah. We've been their enemy ever since July 4, 1776. They insist on a fight to the death, no quarter.

Q. Why didn't we 'surgically' remove Hitler and put moderate Nazis in control of Germany complete with free elections?

A. Because the ones in charge of our government had some brains in their heads.

FDR won the presidency by UNITING the country. Bush won by DIVIDING the country. Look at his supporters.

Divide has been the way so long most think it's normal. It is when establishing kingdoms. Rush Lamebrain said it all with his "America held hostage" garbage durnig the Clinton administration. Relentless dividing is normal for neocons. God is on their side. They're so moral they can't _____.

Doubting Thomas:

“If someone selling breakfast cereal was half as duplicitous as Bush, you'd be up in arms. Your excuses for his lies can only mean that you like the idea of invading and occupying other countries. So drop the front; it's not convincing at all.”

****************

I'm going to go out on a limb and conclude you would like to say I am a liar just like you say Bush is a liar. I’m detecting a theme in your thinking. Is there anyone you disagree with who you do not call a liar?

No offense but your points 1,2,4 & 5 are all just conspiracy theories.

In regard to the UN inspectors, they were finding evidence that Iraq did not have WMD's back in the mid 90's. The problem was there was a lot of conflicting evidence that suggested that Sadam secretly did have WMD's.

Many, many smart people overestimated the threat posed by Sadam’s Iraq. That doesn’t mean they tried to trick anyone or had some nefarious alternative motive.

December 6, 1941 Americans had an attitude.
December 8, 1941 Americans had a different attitude.
The two attitudes were 180 degrees from each other.

September 10, 2001 Americans had an attidude.
September 12, 2001 American additude had not changed. It was one photo op after the other standing beside the rubble. Ministers called special prayer meetings to pray over it, (and pass the plate). Coulselers were called in to deal with it. Just an emotional crock pot is all the administration could think to do.

On the surface the Bush gang appears to have set out to plunder Iraq, exactly what Fr Anderson said about ALL wars above. They banged the hornets nest with a stick with no idea of how to deal with the hornet. Maybe they should study what liberals like Wodrow Wislon and Franklin Rosevelt did in similar situations. 9-11 was more devistating, cost more in lives and treasure than Pearl Harbor.

Step one, change the attitude of the population about war, what it is and how to do it right. Do war right or don't get involved. It's perfectly clear the administration along with all it's 'yes' men don't have clue,, kinda like another Texan, LBJ and Viet Nam. High tech weapons are worthless in the face of suicide attacks,, so it seems.

Two points I'd like to highlight.

Last sentence of article

Who gains from spending our nation’s dollars and the lives of our sons and daughters in a civil war our President refuses to recognize and whose outcome we cannot control?

Quote
In WWII we defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In the same amount of time we haven't even been able to secure Baghdad. This was is as big a joke as this president is.

I disagree. The answer is obvious. In Watergate, Deep Throat said "follow the money".

There is more money to be made in dragging out a loosing strategy than executiung a winning one. Exxon, Boeing and others have profitted well. As former members of the Houston Oil Club, Bush and Cheney deserve congratuations, because for big oil it has been "Mission Accomplished. Give them the credit they deserve.

David:
All these claims that Bush knowingly lied about Iraq having WMD's are just silly.
*******

1) George was thinking about the invasion already when he was running for president. One motive was purely venal: As a wartime president, he believed he would have more power to impose his domestic agenda. That's right, kill American kids to increase his political capital.

2) George nevertheless campaigned on a "humble' foreign policy, not a revival of imperialism and an invasion of Iraq. Quite simple, he lied to the voters.

3) UN inspectors were uncovering the truth about the WMD allegations, and their ongoing results were negative. Bush didn't wait to find out the truth about WMD; he didn't really care.

4) After 9/11 the Bush administration realized they could use the tragedy to justify the invasion of Iran to the public. They didn't truthfully lay out their real reasons for invading, for undertaking the most serious action a president can; instead the put together a PR campaign full of duplicity.

5) Bush and Cheney continually lied in attempting to link 9/11 and Al Qaeda to Iraq.

If someone selling breakfast cereal was half as duplicitous as Bush, you'd be up in arms. Your excuses for his lies can only mean that you like the idea of invading and occupying other countries. So drop the front; it's not convincing at all.

"P.S. Bush is a bi-sexual."

How is this to change my mind? Or should I judge every thing else you have to write on the accuracy of this comment?

Chris:

You wrote "The Sunni insurrgents have killed far more Americans than Al Queada and Al Queada is responsible for only a tiny fraction of the attacks occuring in Iraq."

Umm... Al Qaeda killed about 3000 in the towers, and about 250 in the Pentagon. We aren't really sure how many US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have been killed directly by AQ terrorists, but I am going out on a limb and say around 1/3 of the total to date. That takes the tally to around 4350 Americans to date killed by Al Qaeda. Also, Al Qaeda IS a Sunni insurgency group in Iraq. That is why Iran (being a Shia' muslim nation) didn't offer them any support and actually agreed to capture Al Qaeda terrorists, and to this day is fighting them in Iraq (I mean not really, they wouldn't do that, would they?).

All these claims that Bush knowingly lied about Iraq having WMD's are just silly.

Since a lot of people seem to have forgotten recent history it was during the 90's when we first feared Sadam having WMD's. The UN imposed sanctions on the country at our urging which caused an estimated 500,000 children's deaths from malnutrition, starvation, and lack of medicine. We isolated Iraq from the rest of the world, impoverished the country, created no fly zones, and bombed the country because we believed they had WMD's. Clinton was president for 8 years when all this happened and most of this was his policies. My point is not to criticize Clinton, because all the intelligence we had indicated Sadam had WMD's and that he was a threat and I think Clinton did what he thought was best. My point is that it was Clinton who spent his entire presidency convincing the world that Sadam had WMD's and that he was a threat, not Bush.

By the time Bush came around it was generally accepted as a fact that Sadam had WMD's and was a villain. Bush never made much effort convincing America of this because Clinton had already done so. What Bush did do was convince America that instead of just villainizing Sadam, impoverishing the Iraqi people and letting children starve we should do something to change the situation. Whether that was the right thing to do or the wrong thing is open to debate but Bush didn't lie, he simply believed what Clinton said and felt something needed to be done.

In WWII we defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

In the same amount of time we haven't even been able to secure Baghdad.

This was is as big a joke as this president is.

For all those saying Bush didn't lie, he had intellegence from some in the CIA which contradicted what the rest of the brown-nosers in the CIA were saying. The American people didn't hear about this until well after Sadaam was overthrown and we were in this occupation.

As to the consequences of pulling out, there will be a civil war. So what? Sunnis and Shiites have been kiling each other for over a thousand years and even if we defeated the death squads and insurrgents, the day we pulled out they would start again. How did Sadaam stop this? By slaughtering anyone who wanted to break the country up. Previous to that, Iraq had several coups until the Baaths came in, and before that the British had to put down the Iraqis' revolts. The only form of government that has been able to hold Iraq together since the days of the Ottoman Empire has been an oppressive one. We can't prevent a civil war we can only delay its conclusion. As long as US troops are in Iraq the Shiites and Sunnis will be unable to complete their civil war. In the end, Iran will probably take the Shiite region, Syria the Sunni, and Turkey the Kurdish. US troops are only delaying the final, almost assurdedly inevitable conclusion to this conflict and they are dying for this delay. Nothing is gained by keeping this conflict going.

One final point, Al Queada was NOT in Iraq before we invaded and Sadaam was no threat to us. If they were, wouldn't Al Queada have had the best network and infrastructure for fighting the US? The Sunni insurrgents have killed far more Americans than Al Queada and Al Queada is responsible for only a tiny fraction of the attacks occuring in Iraq. The fact of the matter is that Sadaam was asked by Al Queada to provide bases for them but he rejected them. In addition, Sadaam posed to threat to the US. Iraq had no weapons of mass-destruction and was not involved in terrorism. Obviously, as proved by the first Gulf War, Sadaam's army was no threat to the US army and Iraq had no navy or air force worth mentioning. Thus Sadaam could not attack us or anywhere which we had US troops (which meant he had NO ONE to attack). Therefore Sadaam could not have hoped to threaten the US. The US went to war on false prentenses and now that we're in, we are only making things worse.

Nothing may save us from the (wrongful) desire to "save the world", which originates in our rightful trust that our elected "betters" have that desire in mind when they meddle in other peoples' affairs.
However, this prayer might help if enough of us will say it.

Dear God, help us look after our own trouble... the hurricanes, the floods, the earthquakes, which you send our way. The criminals amongst us...pushing the drugs, harming our children, stealing us blind of our collective wealth to enrich themselves.
Save our country from the self-righteous zealots, their ignorance as well as their evil, and if it's not too much asking, please Dear God, save America from the credulous morons who believe the zealots to speak your will and elect them to govern us. Amen.

Please, George can not speak 20 words without at least one lie. The man is a pathological liar, utterly incapable of not lying, to himself and others. His whole life is one endless lie after another. This war is one lie after the other starting with the core reasons for the lie in the first place. Generally, this was a "Wag the Dog" exploit by Carl and Dick; a chance for the Generals to play with their toys; and a big swagger by der Commander in Chief! The notion that this regime cared one bit for the machinations of a petty dictator is absurd, that they had even a shred of compassion for any Iraqi is beyond absurd, that they really had any concern about risk to the US from WMD or Iraqi Terrorists would be a hugh Lie; no this bungling mad house of fools care only for personal power, personal money, and risk free actions!!

A former Republican and recovering Christian

Mr. Collins

Do you actually think that without the oil we would have been so interested in deposing Saddam? Can anyone be that naive? If Saddam had been the ruler of an oilless African nation he could have been 10 times as ruthless to his people with only token jestures of disapproval from the U.S.

TOM: you wrote: We shouldn't have fought Hitler? Ignore the Holocaust?

We ended up in WWII largely because another deluded American president got us to intervene in WWI. The isolationists were right.We handed victory to the likely losers, and the absurd Versailles Treaty resulted, and WWII became inevitable. Thank you, America. I defy anyone to show how the Kaiser threatened the US.

And we did, actually, ignore the Holocaust.Which would never have happened without us upsetting the balance of Europe with our stupid intervention in "The War to End All Wars."

Our founders did not set up a democratic version of Leon Trotsky's worldwide revolution, they gave us a democratic republic, and George Washington gave us some good advice about foreign entanglements.

Our mistakes started, I believe, when we reached for Empire, for the Phillipines and Cuba. Power, avarice, the urge to dominate have led us to disgrace our heritage in the torture chambers of Abu Grahb.

what are we saying here:

We shouldn't have fought Hitler? Ignore the Holocaust?

What about Stalin and Mao. How may millions did they kill? No one stopped them and it's fine and okay? Whom by the way were atheists who killed more than all the crusades and inquisitions combined.

Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? Darfur? Let them be?

What about Rwanda. Do what Bill Clinton did? Which was nothing as the first Black president.

The killing occurring in Iraq is Muslims on Muslims revenge tit for tat killings between Sunnis and Shiites perpetrated by Al Qaeda.

Mr Anderson,

Anytime pols combine the word 'moral' with anything an alarm should ring. They are up to something immoral! So with the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Despite what all the above have said, the action has left the mid-East safer....for Israel. A once threatening neighbour is now gripped in a bloody civil war and instead of shooting Israelis they are shooting each other. That can't be so very bad, can it? For the Israelis, of course.

Unfortunately the American troops who precipitated the unrest are still in Iraq, stuck in the middle of this escalating violence, serving no purpose other than that of providing targets for both sides. ( Operation Provide Target I guess.) I can't see how that serves any purpose, since the chaos has already been unleashed and unhappily must run its course.

But somehow, the US does not seem able to let go. So its young continue to die; as do the Iraqis. Well, they will die anyway. The war must run its course.

Is there a moral in any of this? I can't see one, can you? Only the proverb:

"He that troubleth his own house will inherit the wind; and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."

I think I got it. We're in Iraq for selfish reasons, the interest of our country. Phew! I thought it was all about enforcing God's law, a police action, arresting and bringing to justice bad men, specifically a bad man named Saddam. Now that's settled we can get back to the goodness and mercy of Almighty God.

Time for a new topic. There is now nor has there ever been and there will never be anything moral about war. Only idiots that will surely lose them think there is. A good ____ is a dead ____. You fill in the blank,, if you want to win the war. Righteousness is no substitute for victory. You can always give it back but not if you are not victorious.

Cut al-qaida's supply lines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank Collins

Please let the Chinese and Russians know when you are going to send all of your 1 million troops to Iraq. This will leave the entire world at the tender mercy of the communists.

NICE ARTICLE!

FROM A PERSON WHO CAN ACTUALLY THINK!

ITS OBVIOUS that many of the readers CAN NOT THINK!

They still hold on to that feeble excuse that we should have went and killed 100,000's of Iraqi's cause Saddam was a madman.

We have killed at least 10 fold the number of people Saddam did, and we have destroyed their whole country!

America and Israel are now arming all sides of the sectarian disputes so as to cause more chaos!

Why!???

So they can divide Iraq up into three smaller sub-divisions. This assist' Israel in becoming the area's only BIG DOG.

You suck ups for this PIG of a counry (israel), and those who support the madman and idiot Bush deserve all that is about to be bestowed on you.

P.S. Bush is a bi-sexual.

We do. Unfortunately it deminishes day by day. As leftist caterwauling increases out of all proportion to the reality.

My Nephew has already served one tour and may well serve a second. The people the American left wish to leave Iraq to skinned his interpreter alive literally befrore they sawed his head off.

Frankly the other side in this war is barbaric and thats probably being unfair to barbarians every where and every when.

Gary D
I really want to believe in what you are saying. Even though it seemed wrong to me when we went in, I would like to think we still have a chance to leave the Iraqi people in a better way.
They didn't deserve Saddam, and they don't deserve what is going on there now.

But the Iraqi people stood to benefit enormously by it. And your assumption that it wasn't just for the good of the Iraq people is true. We stood to gain by it as well but not from Oil.

If all we wanted out of the deal was oil the easy way would ahve been to normalize relations with Iraq as fast as possible, sell saddam whatever he wanted and as our quasi proxie let him have the Middle East. That in fact was pretty much the French (Chirac)position in a nutshell.

I will add that one stated objective of the war in Iraq is/was security. Maybe so, but the security issue would not exist if the other issues did not exist.

People will memorize dozens of factoids they read in Newsweek and see on CNN to try to prove that Iraq was a security threat. The fact is that Iraq was not that much of a thread to the US. If Iraq had started to build nuclear weapons, we could have destroyed the weapons in an early stage of development. That would have probably been easier, and less risky, than an invasion.

Thank you for this response. If we are going to have a logical discussion of the war in Iraq, we need to be realistic.

The Bush administration didn't bet their political careers and a half of a trillion dollars in Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people.

James Anderson didn't mention specifically the "self-interest of the dominant economic groups", but I will.

1) Access to and influence over oil reserves:
Iraq has a lot of oil, and production is projected to increase in the next 15-20 years. Since the productivity of the developing world is increasing rapidly (read "Mapping the Global Future" http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020.html), the oil market will continue to be an important, if not the most important, commodity. Realize that western oil companies are not just going to increase production of oil in Iraq, because that would not increase their profits. China National Petroleum Corp. had a contract to begin work on Al-Ahdab oil field prior to the Iraq war - that contract no longer applies, since the United States is in Iraq. That is one reason that China is investing so heavily in so many other oil producing nations.

2) Military industry.
The weapons used by the US military in Iraq are generally manufactured in the US. The companies that produce the items used by the US military are in the US. The half of a trillion dollars spend on this war is not a complete loss. Need I say more?

3) The media.
The media loves a good story. Notice that now the question is about our failure to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, as if that was the goal in the first place.

I don't know if the United States won or lost in Iraq. I think we basically lost, but it is still possible that the major objectives of the Bush administration will be accomplished. That is, influence over government and industry in Iraq, especially the oil industry, military bases in Iraq.

I think the real question is: If you were in Bush's position, knowing everything he knows, understanding the real objectives behind the war, what would you do?

Personally, I don't think I benefit from this war. I was against it, and I voted against Bush - twice. I discussed this issue with some friends before the invasion of Iraq. But now that the war has begun, I think it should be finished as effectively as possible. That is rational. And the issue is not a moral one, at this point.

We need to finish this war well, not just pull out and call it a loss. Then we need to get on with the life of our country and do something useful.

Viejita,

1. Close Enough

2. Sort of going to war with Pakistan or Iran his two most likely hiding places (roughly 60-40 if that means anything to you) we weren't going to find Osama at allif we didn't find him in the first 2 to 6 weeks of the campaign. By the time of the war with Iraq we weren't going to find him regardless.

3. define imminent and define threat and what sort of threat.

4.Yes obviously it has been changed. For better or for worse remains to be seen and is largely up to the Iraqis themselves.

5.Last I looked Iran is adjacent to Iraq and Afghanistan. And both gie us perfectly good reasons to have a couple of Carrier groups nearby.

6. Yes. But the whole caveate from the git go was how fast could the Iraqi's adapt to not having the family of Saddam Hussein not occupying their every moment and their every nightmare.

The Bush lied He didn't) and people died crowd are beginning to annoy me no end.

And no based upon the best available evidence at the time the war was not a mistake and I believe it to be far to early to tell if it will be.

Mr Anderson, last night I had an important conversation. It was with a teenager working at a local Taco Bell. Would it be better, I wondered, if I got the Seven-layer Burrito or a taco basket with nachos? Yes, it was a gut-wrenching decision to make. I made my decision. Have you?

Oh, and the Iraq War was a huge mistake.

Hi, Vie. :)

Yeah, one thing that seems to be a difficulty in evaluating what to do *next* is really the 'sunk cost' fallacy: in this case, not so much trying to solve an actual problem as it stands now, but to try and vindicate a colossal screwup.

Can't win *that* way, certainly.

The screwup, done under deceptive pretenses, ...It's done. Bad idea. Continues to be expensive and not-apparently-helpful, while diverting massive resources away from potentially-productive things. Our bad. What now.

Just to be clear, no one here is arguing that Saddam was a good guy.
The points are (1) Was he the very worst world leader, and therefore in urgent need of being deposed? (2) Was he an imminent threat to the US? (3) Was removing him worth diverting troops from the search for Bin Laden? (4) Was regime change in Iraq a realistic goal?
Point (3) and (4) have now evolved into (5) Are we safer -- from Iran, etc -- with our forces tied down in Iraq? and (6) Is success in Iraq now even possible?

Did this stop genocide or mass murder?

Could have fooled me.

Not that Saddam was a good guy: that doesn't mean pushing for this war under false pretenses and then trying to justify it later with abstractions that don't hold up to scrutiny, ....was ever a good or productive idea.

At the end of the day, Bush *wanted* war with Iraq, lied about a national trauma to make it politically-impossible to oppose, and is now trying to ennoble the colossal screwup it represents by saying, 'Too late now,'

Which is exactly what Colin Powell was saying, and ended up quietly resigning over.

Welcome to Pottery Barn. Would you like to break some more?

So stopping genocide or mass murder is not a moral venture?

Come Judgement Day ... please don't stand too close to anyone.