Backtracking

Why do we really care whether or not Saddam had chemical or biological agents. We know he had them at one point, since he used them (forget what he says, that's the only absolute proof, even confessions aren't reliable). We know he has/had the people with the knowledge to build them. Regardless of whether or not we had gotten proof of the destruction of existing weapons a few years ago, he would still be able to produce new ones. As I have said before, the knowledge is probably harder to acquire than the weapons themselves.

What disturbs me is the unfortunate rhetoric surrounding the whole thing. "Liberate Iraq", "Free the People", etc. These weren't the original buzzwords, but came into being later on. It is nice to liberate them from a dictator, but we have no clue how to free them. Five soldiers have died in the last week, the Shiite majority is leaning heavily towards an Iranian style theocracy, ethnic unrest is building, etc. We have little experience, and no success with building stable, sound democracies in the modern world.

If we want to go after evil dictators, is it just coincidence that the first two regimes we go after happen to control access to vast quantities of oil? When are we going to liberate a country just to benefit the citizens, without the spectre of private financial gain suggesting an ulterior motive?

I haven't heard about the terrorist training camps in northern Iraq for some time. Is it just that people on this forum have better memories, or are they back in the news? I have a question about them:

Since even the hawks in the Bush administration acknowledged that Saddam had no presence in northern Iraq, who's training camps were these? The kurds?

//If we want to go after evil dictators, is it just coincidence that the first two regimes we go after happen to control access to vast quantities of oil? When are we going to liberate a country just to benefit the citizens, without the spectre of private financial gain suggesting an ulterior motive?

Are you talking about Afghanistan as one of your two? Iraq certainly has lots of oil - and while personally I'd not mind if we grabbed it, that simply isn't going to happen. Wait a while and see. Despite what a lot of people believe, expensive foreign oil is GOOD for big petrochem companies. I've spent a lot of years working for them and I know what I've seen. This is what happens when cheap oil is widely available:

- American-based oil production properties get closed down, workers laid off
- Prices on byproducts and main products go down, profit margins go down

Nobody in this country really benefits from cheap oil - well, except the consumers (us) but we don't matter because we don't really lobby. Big business does the lobbying, and big business doesn't particularly benefit from cheap oil

//We have little experience, and no success with building stable, sound democracies in the modern world.

Now that the war is done, there is no point in not making the attempt. If the US were to walk away from Iraq right this moment, it seems pretty clear to me that the resulting power vacuum would not make very many people happy (the Kurds would likely form their own state, the Turks don't want that, the Shia would likely declare and Islamic state, we don't want that, the Ba'athists would likely get hard times from the Shia, nobodoy really wants that, etc.)

Just because it hasn't been done well in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't even be tried. And actually I'd argue that we do have experience in this arena, and a good success: Japan.

//I haven't heard about the terrorist training camps in northern Iraq for some time. Is it just that people on this forum have better memories, or are they back in the news?

Probably you haven't heard about them much because they are kind of old news now, just like you aren't hearing about completed operations in Basrah and Nasiriyah.

//I have a question about them: Since even the hawks in the Bush administration acknowledged that Saddam had no presence in northern Iraq, who's training camps were these? The kurds?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sc.irq.sadler/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...779359,00.html

According to a variety of news sources, the camps being talked about were operated by Ansar al-Islam, an organization linked to Al Qaeda and described by the Guardian (among other sources) as having "ties to Baghdad and Tehran".

Good reply.

I did mean Afghanistan as being the other country. They are not noted for their oil, but for the intention to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Thus it was not their oil, but their access to other oil that was odd.

Having said that, I fully supported the attack on Afghanistan, but it does not appear that we are following up on it.

You're right about Japan, we did a good job there, and in Germany. Both countries benefitted in the long run (though not in the short run), and we supported their creation of stable democracies.

I have nothing much to say about the economics of oil, except to note that it was energy companies bidding for the contracts to rebuild. Of course, who else could? However, if they are bidding to put the oil into production, perhaps they do want it.

Last, the links to Bahgdad AND Tehran!?! Those two weren't notable allies. I would guess that they are Palestinian issues related camps.

A battle worth fighting should not be fought, but a battle worth winning should be won.

I am all for elliminating the evil men in this world who misuse their power and terrorize their people. However, issues like these are far too complicated to be decided based on this. There has always been evil in the world and there always will be. And in these times of uncertainty were people are blinded by patriotism and stumble over their own hatred it seems that we tend to be too quick to judge, too quick to hate, and too late to think.

So I only have one question for you guys, is life worth dying for?