Keith Devens .com

Oil is not the main motivation at all, of course that doesn't mean people won't try to take advantage of the situation. Or that Bush will go out of his way to do the right thing in regards the oil companies wishes.

What is it about, then? Surely ANYTHING that we get invovled in in that region is related to Oil. It is the only compelling National Interest that we have there.

How about not getting our major cities bombed with a nuclear device? I think that's a national interest of ours. You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

So you'll ignore that gaining control of Iraq's oil reserves would be a giant boon for the US (it'd be nice to wrestle some control from OPEC)? example: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/021001/energy_saudi_gas_1.html

When rhetoric like "American way of life" and "US interests" is brought out, realize what these things are: ExxonMobil, US Steel, pharmeceutical industry, ad nauseum. We're capitalists, not humanitarians.

Just because the action in Iraq is being promoted as being part of the War on Terror, don't think it has nothing to do with oil. Oil may not be the only reason, but its certainly one of the major reasons.

(as an aside - Iraq doesn't have nuclear capability - just biological and conventional weapons are known. there are lots of other countries that have terror cells AND nukes -- like Pakistan -- too bad we're allies with them).
****************
this is the war that never ends
it just goes on and on, my friends
someone started it, not quite knowing what it was
and we'll keep on fighting it just because
this is the war that never ends
....
(apologies to sesame street)

If its not about oil, perhaps its about creating a terrorist.

"WASHINGTON Saddam Hussein's apparent policy of not resorting to terrorist attacks against the United States could change if he concludes a U.S.-led attack against him was inevitable, CIA Director George Tenet said..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60859-2002Oct8.html

1. The person who used to be the head of Saddam's nuclear program for 20+ years says that Saddam could have nukes within months.

2. Three very good reasons to attack Iraq, that make an attack on Iraq, as Dick Armey has said, not even a preemptive strike, are the following:

A. He's ignored U.N. resolutions for more than a decade. As a member of the U.N. (and one of the only ones with enough power to actually do anything about it), it's practically our obligation to use force if necessary to enforce the U.N.'s sanctions.

B. He tried to assassinate a former U.S. president.

C. He continually, and continues to, attack our military enforcing the no fly zone. That alone is enough to justify the use of force.

And of course... it would be nice if we could start buying oil at a reasonable price from Iraq, since we hardly get any from him now because of sanctions. We'll be able to do this after he's removed. But to argue that this is one of the primary reasons we're going after him is myopic and naive.

Oh, and I disagree. I think we are humanitarians. It's a testament to the greatness of America that while we were removing the Taliban regime, we were dropping food for the Afghan population. What other country feeds the people of the contry it is attacking? What other country in the history of the world, after defeating its enemies in a war it didn't start, then rebuilds them? I'm not even talking only about Afghanistan, I'm talking about Germany and Japan after WWII. America has a history of generosity unmatched in the history of the world - and I think it's silly to all of a sudden view our primary motive as greed.

Thought you might be interested in this:

http://www.accuracy.org/bush/

The new war in Iraq is a near certainty. I only doubt that the reasons being given by the Bush administration for military action are the actual reasons for doing so.
-
Also - capitalism != greed

Perhaps I misspoke. We're capitalists first, and humanitarians somewhere way down the line.

If we're humanitarians, why does China have favorite nation status (with its eggregious human rights violations)? Why did we support Suharto or Pinochet or even Hussein (prior to Bush the elder's war with him)? We're humanitarians only when its serves our interest.

Personally, I think Bush just wants to fix the mistake his father made when he was president. Personally, I buy neither the humanitarian argument nor the oil argument.

I heard an interesting comment on the radio on my way home just now. The host said he was getting comments from some guy saying that the war in Iraq is about oil. This is basically an exact quote of what he said in response:

"Are you that much of a pinhead? If we want oil, we can remove the sanctions, it's easier."

I hadn't thought of it that way.

On point A of your 3 points above, saddam hussein has broken 30 less U.N. resolutions than Israel has. Yet america gives 3 billion dollars to Israel every year. Just a point

First of all, I don't see what Israel has to do with this discussion, so your "point" not relevant.

Second, I always hear claims like yours, but I never hear them substantiated. Can you actually document those 30 or did you just pull that number out of your hat? Or somewhere else maybe...

Third, what's your point? Even if what you say is true, then what are you arguing? That Israel is worse than the regime of Saddam Hussein? That because Israel breaks U.N. resolutions (assuming that they do), Iraq has the right to? Any line of argument I can imagine from your "point" is nonsensical. Maybe you can elaborate.

Finally, to compare Israel to Iraq is an unjustified act of moral equivalency.

When I first posted that, I realised I'd have to find the article that I got that information out of. Unfortunately I've since recycled the telegraph magazine from where I got those statistics. However a quick trawl on google (hooray for search engines) found various things. I'd like to apologise for getting the number of resolutions wrong... according to aljazerah it's 16 to 68.(this same fact is repeated here) Now I recognise that being an arabic newspaper it's probably slightly biased against israel, but juding by the lists of resolutions it seems quite comprehensive

To deny that Israel has broken and continues to break UN resolutions seems a bit foolish. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein is a better person than Ariel Sharon and the previous Israeli leaders (okay he may be better than Ariel Sharon, but that's another matter), I'm not saying his regime is better than israels democracy (it's not) What I am saying is that Reason A for going to war against Iraq is hypocritical.
If it's "it's practically (america's) obligation to use force if necessary to enforce the U.N.'s sanctions." then how is alright to keep on funding israel in this way? and to veto taking action on Israel when they don't hold to un resolutions (when the un security council met repeatedly to vote on action against israel for violating un resolution 425 the only member that voted against, and indeed vetoed the process was the US).
I can understand points B and C and while I'm not sure a full scale war is the way to go, I can see your point. I can even see the point in A, the fact that they have violated these sanctions should be dealt with. However as the most powerful nation in the world America should not be acting hypocritcally, nor should it be deciding which un resolutions to uphold and which to ignore

I agree with Spartacus. To begin with, America is not a nation, it is a continent comprising North, Central, and South America.
The USA, Canada and Mexico are all part of North America. We are the United States OF America. We are also part of the UN and should therefore obey it's rules. We shouldn't throw our weight around because we have a large population. The consequences of this war could be horrendous.