First of all, I will attack the assumption that oil is the base of the war that we are heading into with Iraq.
We don't import that much of our oil from the Persian Gulf. Less than a THIRD of our oil comes from the Mid-East. And even LESS than that comes from Iraq. Here is a nice visual graph to back that up.
Now, if we get most of our oil from locations in the western hemisphere, why aren't we invading countries such as Venezuela, or Mexico (which both have crude oil supplies.) Also, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia? Which has 261.8 billion barrels of crude. FAR more than the reserves that are in Iraq. Also, Saudi Arabia kicked the 4 US companies that developed the oil fields that they have out on their ass when they nationalized their oil trade, so why aren't we going after them, despite complaints by the 4 'big ones' in the oil buisness. By the logic presented to me in the arguments in the past, the US government jumps at a chance to please the big bad oil companies!
Heres another visual graph to show where the United States gets its oil from.
Notice we get more than 50% of our oil from ourselves, while less than 20% of our oil comes from the Mid-East (and notice that Iraq isn't even ON that graph)
These facts alone should show that we aren't after oil in Iraq.
Now, to approach the difference between the attacks between say Palestinian and Israeli groups and the US attacking Iraq. See... Palestinians and Israelis have been fighting for thousands of years. 2000 years ago, that land WAS Isreal, than, after World War 2, the Allies set Isreal up again on what was Palestine (which was Isreal before Palestine). Both groups have equal claim to the land, both groups were brought up hating each other. There is no way an agreement will ever be made between both sides. What else can you expect from an area where 3 major religions are centered, and an area where basically 2 countries exist in the same exact spot. he United States doesn't HATE Iraq or Afghanistan, nor do we have any intention of causing the extinction of the countries or their race or whatever. America bombing Iraq is in the intention of taking away nuclear/biological/chemical weapons from a politically unstable enviroment. Even if Saddam doesn't use them, what makes it so sure that some warlord won't step up and stage a political rebellion and take control of some WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). Another thing is, a war in Iraq would have NOTHING to do with the events of September 11th, or the 'war on terrorism.' A war in Iraq would hinder any 'war on terrorism' that we are fighting. It would make the situation worse. We want to rid an unstable enviroment of nuclear weapons. It's bad enough that Pakistan and India have nukes, and its probably worse that North Korea has nukes, however, those countries are nowhere NEAR as unstable as Iraq is. North Korea has a Soviet/Chinese style of government. Anybody who speaks against the government is punished, period. There is no room for instability in the political structure. India and Pakistan are the same, they aren't nearly as bad as Iraq is in regards to political instability, and they may be on the verge of war, but don't you remember a little thing called the Cold War that happened from the 50's through late 80's? We were on the verge of war with the Soviet Union, but we never crossed that edge. Those governments are not stupid enough to use nukes. We all know that nuclear war is unwinnable, both sides lose.
To those who say we are going to lose if we go into Iraq, or we'd get nuked, or whatever. I laugh at you. The United States has the best trained, best supplied, and most powerful military in the world. Iraq would topple, and do you really think that Iran would hesitate to go into Iraq to pick at what was left? They still hold grudges from the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's. Iraq would lose, hands down, no questions asked.
Now, to Bush being dumb. Ok, he may not be the best speaker in the world. But how many times do you mess up with your grammer per day? It is only recently due to Television and Radio that how a President speaks matters in the election (not that that is a bad thing) But do you really think that Woodrow Wilson, or Hoover, or FDR, were critisized on how they spoke? Or their accent (yes, I have heard people say Bush is a bad President because he is Texan and sounds like one) Also, he is NOT the one that forms most of the United States' world policy. The undersecretaries, secretaries, interns, and advisors do that, they draft the speeches, they write up the orders, all Bush does is offer his input or basic ideas. He is a figurehead for the entire executive branch. He is also like a saftey to make sure that nothing outlandish gets through the system without being checked. The people to blame, if anyone is to blame, are the people that advise him. And he has some of the most intelligent, and best advisors ever thrown into the same room together.
I might come up with more later, but I'm starving.
Don't ruin this thread.
-Andy
Attack of the Killer Stop Sign!
Proud member of the resurrected PPP
