It seems that the views on this thread are quite unanimous. There are just as many reasons not to go to war as there are to proceed. Yes, Saddam needs to be ‘relieved’ of his duty, there is no question here. yes, just about every Iraqi desires new leadership. But just how many of them will be around to enjoy new leadership? Pat, a humane war machine wasn’t a concern in 1991 where there were 200,000 - 350,000 Iraqi fatalities (depending on your source), compared to 80 U.S fatalities and it is unlikely to be different here. Although this argument isn’t about comparisons or differentials, every life is incredibly precious, I believe most of the public view the situation in terms of peace and self-preservation for everyone, us today our children tomorrow. Whereas the public see this in terms of the previously mentioned reasons, the current Bush adminstration do not, at least only as a media angle for the public. Without getting into great detail some of the key players in the administration serve the following interests: Condaleeza Rice; Chevron Corporation - Oil, RAND - intelligence (which is just a buzzword for spying): Donal Rumsfeld; Asea Brown - Energy and Fuel development : Dick Cheney ;Halliburton Co - engineering serive for oil co.sAnd of course Mr Bush Jr ;The Enron affiliated Spectrum 7 which later merged with Harken Oil, also not to forget fulfilling his father’s own oil interests. I haven’t mentioned the others (especially Powell, that would require it’s own thread) and their interests. I find this quite remarkable as never has an administration been enriched with so many members who remain magnates in their business fields whilst in charge of the world’s greatest entity; the potential for exploitation is outrageous (this war is one such exploitation- there have been many others).
To say it’s all about oil is becoming somewhat of a cliche, unfortunately it’s quite true. Pat, that should answer your question on why U.S are being blase with N.Korea even after they have confirmed Nuclear interests. If N.Korea had oil reserves they’d be facing the same consequences as Iraq.
mamann, I don’t understand what you disagree with hyooge about, is it the tone of the argument or the stance taken? because the facts are true.
Whiskey, Saddam is not a danger to surrounding nations , since the gulf war Iraq has achieved a stable relationship with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, , Syria, Lebanon, and several African nations.