02-23-2003, 04:07 AM
It still doesn't make this one somehow the same conflict with the same nature as the previous Gulf War.
In many ways, it is exactly the same conflict, under continuation after a long ceasefire. Since the Hussein regime has never been willing to comply to the terms they agreed to in ending the previous conflict, that ending is looking more like an intermission. And also since the Hussein regime has never been willing to comply to the terms they agreed to in ending the previous conflict, it seems unlikely that this conflict can ever end with the Hussein regime in power.
But oil wise, presenting the fact the American forces did not take the oil fields in the previous conflict has nothing to do with anything in reality.
It has a great deal to do with reality. This is essentially the same conflict, the general motivations and objectives are closely related to those in Desert Storm, and the current foreign policy team in the U.S. is very closely related to those who made the decisions in Desert Storm. If oil had been the primary motivation the first time around, the U.S. could have and would have gone all the way to Baghdad, made the regime change then, and seized the oil fields in the way you suggest they might. It did not happen. What did happen instead was pretty clearly presented at the start of this thread, is absolutely contradictory to the idea of a grab at Iraqi oil, and has not really been refuted to any degree by anyone in this thread. So now, following our original motives from Desert Storm, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight about how Saddam handles international law, the path to Baghdad may be the only way to successfully achieve our primary objective from Desert Storm. Should we then forego a crucial mission on the basis that somehow it may be feasibly possible for U.S. corporations to end up benefiting?
They have stated there will be an American sponspored government put in power and the line of thinking does hold.
It holds in the same way that most conspiracy theories hold, with a lot of speculation and not a shred of supporting evidence.
WHAT, DOES WHAT POWELL SAID, HAVE TO DO WITH THE "WE CAN'T DECLASSIFY THE DOCUMENTS" DEFENCE NYSTRUL USED?
I was providing justification for not disclosing certain information. Pete's reply suggests that evidence to make the case for war has been disclosed to the people who need to know. That counters your implication (through a hypothetical) that the U.S. intelligence could claim anything. They can claim anything, but they can't act on those claims without providing evidence to those who should know. But that does not mean that full disclosure has to be made to the public, which would essentially render our intelligence organizations absolutely useless.
In many ways, it is exactly the same conflict, under continuation after a long ceasefire. Since the Hussein regime has never been willing to comply to the terms they agreed to in ending the previous conflict, that ending is looking more like an intermission. And also since the Hussein regime has never been willing to comply to the terms they agreed to in ending the previous conflict, it seems unlikely that this conflict can ever end with the Hussein regime in power.
But oil wise, presenting the fact the American forces did not take the oil fields in the previous conflict has nothing to do with anything in reality.
It has a great deal to do with reality. This is essentially the same conflict, the general motivations and objectives are closely related to those in Desert Storm, and the current foreign policy team in the U.S. is very closely related to those who made the decisions in Desert Storm. If oil had been the primary motivation the first time around, the U.S. could have and would have gone all the way to Baghdad, made the regime change then, and seized the oil fields in the way you suggest they might. It did not happen. What did happen instead was pretty clearly presented at the start of this thread, is absolutely contradictory to the idea of a grab at Iraqi oil, and has not really been refuted to any degree by anyone in this thread. So now, following our original motives from Desert Storm, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight about how Saddam handles international law, the path to Baghdad may be the only way to successfully achieve our primary objective from Desert Storm. Should we then forego a crucial mission on the basis that somehow it may be feasibly possible for U.S. corporations to end up benefiting?
They have stated there will be an American sponspored government put in power and the line of thinking does hold.
It holds in the same way that most conspiracy theories hold, with a lot of speculation and not a shred of supporting evidence.
WHAT, DOES WHAT POWELL SAID, HAVE TO DO WITH THE "WE CAN'T DECLASSIFY THE DOCUMENTS" DEFENCE NYSTRUL USED?
I was providing justification for not disclosing certain information. Pete's reply suggests that evidence to make the case for war has been disclosed to the people who need to know. That counters your implication (through a hypothetical) that the U.S. intelligence could claim anything. They can claim anything, but they can't act on those claims without providing evidence to those who should know. But that does not mean that full disclosure has to be made to the public, which would essentially render our intelligence organizations absolutely useless.