cygweb

Personally, I think North Korea poses a much larger threat to the US than Iraq does. However, Dubya seems to be picking on Iraq for a multitude of reasons:

- The oil. Duh.

- His father did not succeed in ousting Hussein 12 years ago, so this is his chance to fix that.

- Having two friendly governments in the Middle East can help exert pressure and force the US agenda on the rest of the region, hopefully stopping the violence against Israel.

- Having Iraq as a friendly nation makes an invasion of Iran (the third nation in the so-called "axis of evil") much easier.

- Our "war on terrorism" has yet to result in the capture of Osama bin Laden. A win in Iraq would justify the "war" in the eyes of the American public, winning back support for Dubya at a time when his approval ratings are slipping fast.

It's hard for me to be all "rah-rah" about this war because of all that. But I guess that's what happens when you grow up and become cynical.

I agree with you on North Korea. South Korea is a vital trading partner with us, and I think any instability in that region with impact us more than a similar situation in Iraq.

I recently heard an NPR report on the attitudes of many younger South Koreans who are quite publicly disapproving of U.S. military presence there. They apparently want to forget 50 years of protection and (relative) prosperity in the name of reuniting, at least socially, with the North. I can only guess they don't have an awareness of both their current situation and the history of the peninsula.

1) Would you people stop this oil nonsense? WE HAVE OIL! What does Texas have? OIL! We have a lot more oil than you think so drop this "we're going to war for oil" crap.

2) PICKING ON IRAQ?!?! Excuse me, but let's review the real reasons we are GOING TO WAR with Iraq. Who has illegal biological weapons? Who has links to al qaeda, the terrorist network that murdered thousands in New York/D.C....the al qaeda terrorist network that [for some of us] caused us to never see our loved ones ever again...even their bodies? Yes, that al qaeda. Who is developing weapons of mass destruction and probably selling them to terrorists so that they can kill those "stupid Americans"? Yes, Iraq.

3) In response to Alex's article...In my opinion, it is worth going halfway around the world to reform, not "replace," the government that clearly is not a very great one. The thought of government support of develop of chemical/biological weapons and terrorist networks and terrorism being supported in the country...some terrific government, huh? You do realize that if we reform their government into a stable, secure government, and they do not develop terrorist links again, we probably won't have sanctions on Iraq anymore? That would make life better for the brainwashed citizens who think Americans are evil and should die.

4) Also in response to Alex's article: Maybe Bush did say that nation building was not something that interested him, but we liberated Afghanistan. (Wait, who even said we're NATION BUILDING by going to war with Iraq?) Now women can actually have real lives, nothing like it was when the Taliban was in power. That would be thanks to us and some others. Aso, at the time prior to election, no one knew 9.11 would happen. Things change when things happen. If you recall, Jefferson did not believe in expanding US. Once he became President, however, he changed his mind. When the French king offered him a great bargain for property, he changed his mind. Why? Because opinions change when in different situations. I'm sorry, it just happens that way sometimes.

I don't want to go to war, but if our country needs to do what it needs to do, then so be it. If this newly proposed resolution (UK proposed it today) works out, then I will be glad not to go to war. If it doesn't, then we'll just keep doing what we have to do.

It's easy to brandish 9/11 as a reason to go into Iraq and whoop some ass. I'm also very sad about 9/11, but I don't think that's why George Bush is so adamant about attacking Iraq. First of all, I don't think he's been able to prove any connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda despite trying really really hard. Second of all, Saudi Arabia has a much stronger connection, (money-wise), but we're on such good terms with them (oil-wise) we dare not ruffle their feathers.

Also, if you think the oil coming out of Texas is a lot, you should see the ammount produced by Iraq's oil fields. They're some of the richest in the world.

Enough about oil, though. I also do not like Saddam, and think Iraq would be better off without him, but I don't think this gives us the right to go in there and devastate the country. Look at our own country. We have many more weapons of mass destruction than any other nation on earth. We have a long history of invading and interfering with other country's democratic process. We have a stockpile of nukes and a president who doesn't seem to honor past treaties and has a very itchy trigger finger. Anyone in the world can point to us, and, using the same logic we've used about Iraq, say they can invade us and take out our government because we're a 'significant threat to world peace'. We, of course, would fight back, and suddenly you have a whole host of nations at each other's throats. Agression begets agression.

The U.N.'s main objective is stop another world war from happening. One of it's charters is that a country cannot pre-emptively strike another country just because they think it might prove to be a threat in the future. The U.N. was behind us 100% in the gulf war because Iraq invaded Kuwait. This time, however, we're just barging in there claiming a whole bunch of things we've been unable to prove. If we do this, it sets up a double standard. We can invade any country we want. Nobody else can. We can go against the U.N., but if anyone else tries it, we'll make them regret it.

How can the world not see this as pure American arrogance? They once stood united with us in our war against terror. They laid flowers at the doors of American embasies, and threw NY Yankees baseball caps in the path of parades honoring the people we lost in the 9/11 attacks. Even France said, 'We are all Americans now.' But that's all over. They hate us, burn effigies of our president, and carry signs saying we're the real terrorists here. As for Saddam, who is an oppressive dictator and a megalomaniac to boot, well he now has their sympathy. Can't you see we're going about this absolutely in the wrong way?

We SHOULD abide by the U.N. if we expect any other country to do so. We will lose all our allies if we do this, and will unite all our enemies. Even if Bush is going over there for the good of Iraq and the world (which I seriously doubt) it is a phenomenally bad idea. God help us all if he's going over there to kill for oil, for re-election, or for revenge.

Would you people stop this oil nonsense? WE HAVE OIL! What does Texas have? OIL! We have a lot more oil than you think so drop this "we're going to war for oil" crap.

Why the "oil crap", as you so eloquently put it? George W. Bush was on the board of Harken Energy, and started off as an oil man with Arbusto... who were bought out by the company that became Harken when Arbusto was about to go under. Dick Cheney was CEO of Haliburton, the world痴 largest oil field services company, as recently as 1999. Condoleeza Rice? On the board of Chevron (they named a tanker after her). (Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp.)

As for how much oil we have (about 22 billion barrels in 2001), Iraq still has about five times what the US has, which amounts to about 11% of the world's oil resources - more than any other nation that isn't Saudi Arabia. (Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html) Conquering Iraq would give the United States (or, rather, ExxonMobil) control over this vast resource.

Meanwhile, North Korea, who poses a more direct threat to the American public (they have missiles that can reach California), and has no oil reserves to speak of, gets the diplomatic treatment.

Forgive me if I don't just view all this as an incredible coincidence.

But never mind the oil issue. Setting up a puppet government in the Middle East will further destabilize the region. This isn't going to make anyone feel safe. The Palestinians will continue to attach the Israelis. The Iranians will be concerned that they're next as part fo the axis of evil. And in all that chaos, more terrorists who see this as an affront to Islam will attack the US and US interests.

If this newly proposed resolution (UK proposed it today) works out, then I will be glad not to go to war. If it doesn't, then we'll just keep doing what we have to do.

Which is what? Ignoring international law when it doesn't serve our needs? Attacking countries without provocation? Ignoring domestic problems in favor of a patch of sand on the other side of the world?