Retrophisch

Speaking of all of the peace-love-and-happiness anti-war protestors, please allow me to congratulate you. You have managed to ingratiate yourselves with a mass murderer, with a man known for invading his neighbors and gassing his own citizens. I hope this makes you happy.

This differs how, precisely, to the US's ingratiating itself with Saddam in the 80's; you know, all those arms they gave him? How about when the mighty Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf let Saddam keep his Republican Guards, and his helicopter gunships, at the end of the Gulf War? That allowed them to run around pouring petrol on the fleeing civilians who stood up to fight the rebellion that Bush asked for, while US troops prevented them from reaching arms depots and would offer no help.

Did you know that there is also a proven link between the US government and Saddam? True fact. Saddam was a big customer, back in the day... you know, all those biological weapons they provided. Let's not forget how instrumental your CIA was in getting his party in power in the first place.

Just wondering, y'know, cause we could all use a free ticket on the clue train every now and then. Especially when we live in glass houses.

Re: Schwarzkopf and Co. not pushing all the way to Baghdad and totally dismantling Saddam's forces...

This was not undertaken since the primary role of the United States and Coalition forces in the Gulf War was to remove Saddam from Kuwait, a nation he had sought to invade and conquer. Had the U.S. pushed on to topple Saddam, we would have lost all of the support of the rest of the Arab League, including Saudi Arabia, from where we were basing the majority of our attacking forces.

Like many, I would have preferred that the Bush (41) administration take that risk, and have gone after Saddam in 1991 so we wouldn't have to deal with him now. I believe the Coalition may have faltered, but would have held together long enough to accomplish the job. In doing so, however, how much long-term animosity might have we incurred? Worse yet, what if we tried and failed, and we were in the same position we are today? What kind of response would we get from the same Arab nations that are willing to help us now?

Yes, a Kennedy-administration CIA was responsible for opening the doors for Saddam to walk through. Yes, a Reagan-administation CIA was responsible for an arms build-up by Iraq, who was engaged in a war with Iran at the time. The U.S. was interested in seeing the militant brand of Islam preached by the Ayatollah Khomeini not spread beyond Iran's borders, so arms were supplied to Saddam. Funny how today Saddam hides behind Islam, when the Ba'ath Party was notoriously secular during its rise to prominence. Yes, Bush (41) should have done more in terms of support to help the Kurds (whom I have great affinity for, having studied them in college) and the Shi'ites in Iraq.

I can acknowledge that our country has made mistakes in the past with Saddam, just as other nations have, not only with Iraq. Now we're interested in correcting those mistakes, to right wrongs we may have aided in their cause. Yet so many don't want to see this happen, and I think it's foolish. Think of it like this: you smoke for a good portion of your life, find out you have lung cancer; wouldn't you then do all you could to rid yourself of this cancer? The United States is not alone in any blame for Saddam's position and power, but we're willing to destroy the cancer, before it ravages more of the body than it already has.

Goodness, talk about naive. You really think control-freak atheist dictator Saddam is going to provide NBC weapons to loose-cannon Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that he has no sway over? Wait, I'll bet he provided all the Saudis and Egyptians who carried out the 9/11 attacks with all their box-cutters! We got him now!

And yes, it is about oil. If you were to read up on the grandiosely-named thinktank Project for a New American Century, and if you paid attention to economic events, you would see this. The folks in DC don't want the oil for us. They want to control the area where China, Japan, et al GET their oil. Also, to intimidate the surrounding countries into switching back to using US$ instead of euros as reserve and oil purchasing currency.

As a matter of fact, I do belive that Saddam would provide NBC weapons to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, who have shown, via 9/11, they are anything but loose cannons. Al-Qaeda is well-funded and well-organized. They are in the major leagues compared to the AA squad of Palestinian suicide bombers plaguing Israel. By providing said weapons, it also gives Hussein the means to strike at his enemies, real and perceived, without direct action, and therefore direct repercussions (or so he thinks), on his part.

I seriously doubt any presidential administration has based its policies on the conclusions of a single think tank. I stand by my original assertion.

It has been reported by many that even if the U.S. was to go in, kill/capture/exile Saddam, establish a temporary military protectorate, help write a constitution, and oversee elections for a republican government in Iraq, the oil production we would supposedly benefit from would not be reaped until George W. Bush was well out of a second term, should he be elected to one. I cannot believe that if this was a totally political issue that he would risk all of that for something he would not benefit from in the future.

Of all oil products, the only thing the U.S. imports from Iraq is crude oil. Of all the crude oil that we import, only 6.25% comes from Iraq. We import a lot of refined oil as well; none of it comes from Iraq. As oil importations go, Iraq is small fries to the United States. I realize that other nations import significantly more oil, and oil products other than crude, from Iraq than we do.

Amazing that the same types of people who accuse Bush of being "stupid," or "unintelligent" believe he is nefarious enough to come up with the scheme you describe above. Would we like to influence oil-producing nations to not sell as much oil to potential enemies and competitors? Sure, what nation wouldn't? Are we going to go to war to accomplish this? Don't be ridiculous. This war is not about oil.

I don't think nations are going to need any intimidation in the future to switch from the Euro. Have you been paying attention to recent economic events? The Euro is consistently tanking. Within 20 months of its initial release, the Euro lost 30% of its value against the dollar, and would have continued to fall except by an intervention by the European Central Bank. It climbed slightly after that, then fell again. The 9/11 attacks boosted the Euro again as the dollar fell, but throughout 2002 the Euro consistently lost value against the dollar. As of today, the exchange rate hovers around US$ 1.00 = Euro .91. Favorable, yes, but not by very much. Certainly not worth intimidating other nations over.