Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I base my views on my analysis of the situation. What would change my mind is a presentation of a credible plan of action that would secure the oil market in the Middle East and bring stability to the region. A plan that doesn't involve the threatened use and willingness to use the military as some suggest.
|
What about investing a fraction of what we've spent on the war in alternative fuels? Instead of continuing to invest in an exhaustable resource, and a resource that seems to fuel war, we might consider trying to make things like hydrogen, biodiesel, etc. more efficient. It is conceivable that if the time and money put into oil were invested in something renewable and something we can produce at home, our econemy would become more stable, global terrorism would decrease (because we would no longer be forced to interfere with or go to war with ME countries), our environment would improve considerably, and we would be investing in our own fuel production.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Many seem to be arguing points and issues that are different than what I consider important. For example - The record shows Saddaam had no nuclear weapons. I accept that, howerver, I believe he would have instituted a progam, get the weapons and use them. Some some keep arguing the point about him not having the weapons or a program therefore the invasion was not needed. What I am saying is - Saddaam wanted to control the territory and oil in the middle east, invaded countries in the past, defyed UN mandates, and he would have used nuclear weapons when it obtained them.
|
You believe that he had the capability to find, build or buy nuclear weapons? Because the CIA and most other inteligence agencies would disagree with you, and they have evidence and testimony to back their conclusions. General Zinni, a man I greatly respect, explained the situation quite well. As quoed in Host's post above:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GEN. ZINNI
Well, I—first of all, I saw it in the way the intelligence was being portrayed. I knew the intelligence; I saw it right up to the day of the war. I was asked at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing a month before the war if I thought the threat was imminent. I didn’t. Many of the people I know that were involved in the intelligence side of this, or, or in the military felt the same way. I saw the—what this town is known for: spin, cherry-picking facts, using metaphors to evoke certain emotional responses, or, or shading the, the context. We, we know the mushroom clouds and, and the other things that were all described that the media’s covered well. I saw on the ground, though, a sort of walking away from 10 years worth of planning.
|
One of the spun stories was that of Saddam's ability to make war. If you asked any General who was involved in ME politics before the Second Gulf War, they will tell you that Saddam's power was deterriorating at an alarming rate. This was the post war plan after Desert Storm 1. It was working. Then came Bush version 2.0 and his administration of cowboys.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The oil for food program shows we did not have him or the situation under control.
|
That shows that not even the UN is capable of being free of corruption, something that shouldn't suprise anyone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Saddamm needed to go.
He was a threat.
Military action was needed.
Acting after the fact would have been much more costly.
|
How terribly incorrect. Saddam was not a threat t the US. Saddam was no longer a thread to his neighbors. Saddam was heading towards not even being a threat to his own people. Military action was taken by the US not because of Saddam's ability to make war, but beacuse of these reasons among others:
1) W. Bush
hates Saddam Husain. He's hated him since the early 90s. He has been very public about how he feels.
2) Iraq has oil fields, and our president is an oil tycoon (a failed one, but one non the less).
3) Our vice president used to work for Haliburton, a provider of products and services to the oil undistry.
4) War time presidents are allowed to get away with more.
5) The PNAC gang has been planning this for over 10 years, and they assumed that Sadam would become more powerful in their 10 year old plan.
6) Jesus told Bush to go to war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I know I am repeating myself, but I bring up the same points because I don't think I have ever recieved direct responses.
|
I hope my responses are more direct, and I apologize if my previous responses have not.