Iraq – Oil and Terrorism
In January of 1991 GHW Bush launched an offensive to push Saddam’s army back to Iraq out of Kuwait. After driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, Bush, Cheney and his advisors decided to end the push. Others pressed Bush to continue into Baghdad and topple the Iraqi government. However, Bush and Cheney knew the end result would be long term occupation in Iraq and probably a lot of casualties.
For years during and after his presidency the U.S. has had plenty of opportunity to remove Saddam from power. The term “remove” in this context means assassination. The only logical reason Saddam was left to rule so long is simple. Who would take his place? We had a darn good idea of the governing practices of Saddam Hussein. Though he was a heartless dictator, he was predictable. The next successor may be unknown. So we let him be and the bleeding hearts were happy.
America had been trying to lightly overthrow the Iraqi government. Even President Clinton believed in this. Every time Saddam violated U.N. Sanctions, one being a no-fly zone, we would air strike. These air strikes continued with the hopes that his closer enemies would overthrow the dictator, but no dice.
In 2001 we get attacked at home, and the American people want retaliation. So off we go to Iraq. Invade them, topple Saddam and he is executed for war crimes. Now the average American tree hugging hippies are upset. There were no weapons of mass destruction found and it is entirely the President’s fault for killing innocent ol’ Saddam.
Some of the American people think they have all the inside intelligence that our government possesses and on that, can make a sound decision. GW Bush followed intelligence advice that Iraq did indeed have these weapons, and for the hundredth time, was in violation of UN sanctions. There was a spider web forming.
If Iraq disregards UN Sanction about not having these sorts of arms then they would eventually end up in the hands of Al-Qaeda. We can only slap the hand so many times before stricter consequences must follow. And they did with the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein.
On another note, our hippie friends shout this was also about oil. Darn right it was. We are the biggest consumers
of oil in the world and one of the smallest populations. The biggest factor in 1991 was oil. Kuwait wanted to produce an abundance of oil to keep prices down, while Saddam wanted production slowed to raise prices so they could make money to rebuild after the Iraq-Iran war.
If you want to complain it was about oil, think about what oil does for us. Oil is all around us in the form of your roof shingles to the asphalt for our roads and interstates. The tires on your car are composed partly of oil along with plastics. Before you complain about your plastic water bottle, think about all plastic does for us. Such as the medical industry, your computer, TV, coffee pot, tooth brush, and the list is endless. Oil is good for our economy and cheap oil is even better.
Comment by Ohg Rea Tone on 21 February 2009:
This is confusing.
You say, “In 2001 we get attacked at home, and the American people want retaliation. So off we go to Iraq. Invade them, topple Saddam and he is executed for war crimes. Now the average American tree hugging hippies are upset. There were no weapons of mass destruction found and it is entirely the President’s fault for killing innocent ol’ Saddam.”
It seems you make a connection between the 911 attacks and Saddam – when no evidence has been produced to support this claim. You are correct – the American people want retaliation – but we want the retaliation to address those who perpetrated the crimes. No one is defending Saddam – Why did we go to Iraq? What did that have to do with 911? Why is Osama Bin Laden still free? Why are the Taliban gaining strength in Afghanistan>
We tree-huggers are upset because Bush and Cheney took their eye off the ball. The let Bin Laden off the hook. Now we have to fight that war again – at the expense of more of our brave men in the military.
It seems to me that anyone who cares about our men in uniform would be aghast at the squandering of life for the personal goals of GW and the ego of Cheney.
As for the oil – where is it? Why have prices skyrocketed? Why do we spend more money on Iraqi infrastructure than we spend on our own highways and bridges?
And this – if we want to knock over countries that have belligerent dictators – then we had better get busy – they are standing in line with their ruthless leadership. Is it the job of the United States to police the world? Are we the moral dictators of right and wrong?
Comment by Cole James on 21 February 2009:
There is no evidence between 911 and saddam, but there is also no evidence that electrons exists. You said it just right, they took their eye off the ball. But there is more information about the whole situation than we know or ever will know. Terrorist buy on the black market, and what they purchase is down right scary. We know Saddam was always violating UN Sanctions. So if he violates the arms sanctions and researched and develops nuclear, biological or chemical arms, he would just sell them to terrorists cells and he is clean when the inspectors come. I do not have near any of the answers.
I would agree to close the doors to the world and let them fend for themselves, but we as Americans are selfish, we want oil. We can not drill here at home so we are at the mercy of others. We look at Darfur and the genocide happening over there, and we show a small presence but they hold nothing for us to gain so we don’t focus our efforts there.
The United Nations are suppose to be worlds coalition police, but if they are too busy writing warning tickets rather than enforcing the law, someone has to step in, so we did.
Higher oil prices can be a product of so many things besides greed. For example we have Al Gore, Mr. EPA. To a degree I support his fight for the environment, that’s what conservatives support or at least use to. Looking at the automotive, trucking and heavy equipment industry we see more and more emissions regulations every year. This cost’s lots of money at a manufacturers expense for research and development. The easiest option is electric.
Democrats don’t care about the environment, they just want more money to spend, so the regulate the life out of the auto industry and force most companies to just pay heafty fines because they can’t meet the standards. Caterpillar for instance were under pressure to make their 2006 model, C-15 engine, meet even stricter emissions in 2008. Unable to do so in a small amount of time, they just paid big fines until they were able to meet the guidlines and the dems. were happy because they got the money.
Comment by Ohg Rea Tone on 21 February 2009:
Alexander Hamilton, a Founding Father and the first Secretary of the Treasury argued for a strong Navy. His argument – we need a strong navy to protect our trade routes because trade was vital to our economy and thus to our national security.
I agree – we need to protect our economy – and for now that means protecting our access to oil.