[CLUE-Talk] More on the Oil and Iraq connection...

[Dave Hahn]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Timothy C. Klein" <teece at silverklein.net>
To: <clue-talk at clue.denver.co.us>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [CLUE-Talk] More on the Oil and Iraq connection...
[snip]

> I think there are only two reasons I would support invading Iraq:  clear
> and preasent danger, or to free the Iraqi people of Saddam.  The first
> reason was chosen, but the case for it is very weak.  The second reason
> was glossed over.  I wouldn't really have a problem with the war if I
> felt that GWB had been truthful about the reasons for going.

It's my gut feeling that "freeing the people/getting rid of Saddam" may have
been a larger part of the pie, but like I said, freeing people from
dictators hasn't been "a reason" that we've used for going to war.  Mostly,
because it is in a gray area - "Do they want to be freed?" "What will they
think of us afterward?" "What if the guy comes back?".  However, imminent
threat is unarguable - they are going to hurt you unless we stop them.  So,
if you can't claim freeing the people as the reason, you find another,
unarguable reason (at least as much as is possible) that will allow you to
accomplish your first goal.. This is not a pretty picture per se, but, fits
with politics.  And, it's a bunch of politicians that took us to Iraq
anyway.  So, being surprised by their odd reasoning is silly - we should
expect politics from politicians.

> As for the Saddam part, I don't agree that it doesn't make sense.  First
> of all, most of the weapons we gave him have a very real shelf life.  In
> all reality, they were probably useless.  We have not found the
> infrastructure to build more, or even maintain the ones he had.  They
> were probably useless to him, and could get him in a whole hell of a lot
> of trouble.  So he may destroyed them.  It seems idiotic to not tell the
> UN that, but he was a vain man, perhaps he didn't want to say that he
> had buckled to the UN.  He insisted on saying that he won the first Gulf
> War, so I wouldn't put it past him to behave this way.
[snip]

Interesting thought.  However, IIRC not all the weapons we gave him were of
an expirary type - after all, he needed to defend himself from those
Iranians in an ongoing fashion.  Now those classified as WMD may have been -
at what point I would not expect Saddam to take the time to destroy them.  I
rather expect he'd let us find them in their useless state.  So, something
here still doesn't quite hit me as right.  Could it be more likely that he'd
disassemble the weapons, remove the useless bits, and remanufacture them
with something he could still use?  I'm not sure we've found any
bio-chemical kinds of stuff, but, IIRC, we did find a few heavy hitters as
far chemical weapons designers go.  So, if the delivery systems were still
usable - I expect he may have been doing something with them.

Saddam claims he won the first Gulf War and many people in the U.S. seem to
think we won the Alamo.  "Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people
believe it" - Should sound familiar.

-d