NationStates Jolt Archive

Can anyone give me proof that Bush is in Iraq just for the oil? Or is that just some wild accusation that someone made up?

Can anyone give me proof that Bush is in Iraq just for the oil? Or is that just some wild accusation that someone made up?Not just for the oil, but you're kidding yourself if you think that wasn't one of the motivating factors.

No proof, just directive implementations. It's proved that he will gain from the invasion through military spending, mainly Cheney though. Look it up, there plenty out there. Anyways basically it's like me owning a band aid shop and going around kicking people. I will make money in the end but no one can prove why I actually kicked the kid. He might have had weapons of mass...disruption was it Mr Bush??

There is no proof. It is only left-wing propeganda.

I've had 3 history teachers that have each told me one main thing.

Follow the money.

Money and Religion are the two main factors on diplomacy, etc.

i believe that accussation is out there because there is no other plausible reason (besides the generalized form which would be to have control over politically important regions and resources). it isn't like saddam had done anything in particular right before the us launched their unprovoked attack on them. nothing that they hadn't been doing for years, anyway. and its not like saddam was the only fucked up dictator running around. or even the worst. the only thing that is plausible is the call for empire laid out by pnac - and the reason there is to protect american interests, namely oil.

but this is just business as usual for the us. it was merely conducted a bit more openly and in a more retarded fashion than usual.

fuck empire.

Here is one article from Berkley:
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14&notFound=true

Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1270414,00.html

University of Wisconsin
http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/philligr.html

Interesting Little Thing:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn01142004.html




And numerous books...

Oh, and this timeline looks pretty damning...

http://americanassembler.com/timelines/iraq/timeline_iraq.html

Oh, and this timeline looks pretty damning...

http://americanassembler.com/timelines/iraq/timeline_iraq.html

HAHAHAHA...that's awesome.

PWNED! Go liberalistic!

Well, when you consider his personal, and family history, it's not a big leap to make.

“The political, strategic and moral rewards would also be even greater. A friendly, free, and oil-producing Iraq would leave Iran isolated and Syria cowed; the Palestinians more willing to negotiate seriously with Israel; and Saudi Arabia with less leverage over policymakers here and in Europe. Removing Saddam Hussein and his henchmen from power presents a genuine opportunity — one President Bush sees clearly — to transform the political landscape of the Middle East.”

“In particular, removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and helping construct a decent Iraqi society and economy would be a tremendous step toward reducing Saudi [oil] leverage. Bringing Iraqi oil fully into world markets would improve energy economics. From a military and strategic perspective, Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia. And building a representative government in Baghdad would demonstrate that democracy can work in the Arab world. This, too, would be a useful challenge to the current Saudi regime.“

http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/IPW_USmotives.htm

Well, when you consider his personal, and family history, it's not a big leap to make.

When you follow the money, what are the two main industries that will benefit?

Halliburton (Defense, some oil I believe, etc)
Big Oil

Who have our leaders worked for?

Halliburton
Big Oil

Not to even delve into the Carlyle Group

“The political, strategic and moral rewards would also be even greater. A friendly, free, and oil-producing Iraq would leave Iran isolated and Syria cowed; the Palestinians more willing to negotiate seriously with Israel; and Saudi Arabia with less leverage over policymakers here and in Europe. Removing Saddam Hussein and his henchmen from power presents a genuine opportunity — one President Bush sees clearly — to transform the political landscape of the Middle East.”

“In particular, removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and helping construct a decent Iraqi society and economy would be a tremendous step toward reducing Saudi [oil] leverage. Bringing Iraqi oil fully into world markets would improve energy economics. From a military and strategic perspective, Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia. And building a representative government in Baghdad would demonstrate that democracy can work in the Arab world. This, too, would be a useful challenge to the current Saudi regime.“

http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/IPW_USmotives.htm

I gurantee that Bush isn't woried about the Saudi's, his friends.

I do agree that this isn't a one-faced war. This has multiple issues and multiple consequences.

When you follow the money, what are the two main industries that will benefit?

Halliburton (Defense, some oil I believe, etc)
Big Oil

Who have our leaders worked for?

Halliburton
Big Oil

Not to even delve into the Carlyle Group

That's right. It's all too much to call a coincidence. This is, if there is such a thing, proof.

That's right. It's all too much to call a coincidence. This is, if there is such a thing, proof.


I suggest reading American Dynasty. I've just started and the pure facts behind it makes it a respectable read and I'm just in the pure history part.

“The political, strategic and moral rewards would also be even greater. A friendly, free, and oil-producing Iraq would leave Iran isolated and Syria cowed; the Palestinians more willing to negotiate seriously with Israel; and Saudi Arabia with less leverage over policymakers here and in Europe. Removing Saddam Hussein and his henchmen from power presents a genuine opportunity — one President Bush sees clearly — to transform the political landscape of the Middle East.”

“In particular, removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and helping construct a decent Iraqi society and economy would be a tremendous step toward reducing Saudi [oil] leverage. Bringing Iraqi oil fully into world markets would improve energy economics. From a military and strategic perspective, Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia. And building a representative government in Baghdad would demonstrate that democracy can work in the Arab world. This, too, would be a useful challenge to the current Saudi regime.“

http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/IPW_USmotives.htm


This is taken directly from a paper written by the American Enterprise Institute, a neocon thinktank. The authors of this memo include Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith. All of whom are INSTRUMENTAL in deciding U.S. foreign policy. What's great is that lately the neocons are saying they were wrong. :P

I suggest reading American Dynasty. I've just started and the pure facts behind it makes it a respectable read and I'm just in the pure history part.

I think I've read that actually. Couple weeks back. Can't remember.

I think I've read that actually. Couple weeks back. Can't remember.


lol

I gurantee that Bush isn't woried about the Saudi's, his friends. It seems there are some competing interests in the Bush administration. Bush and Cheney have close links with the Saudis and want to maintain good relations with their oil friends. However, neo-conservatives want to take a hardline stance against Saudi Arabia.

I think they can all agree that relying too heavily on Saudi oil is dangerous for the US economy as eventually, the Saudi royal family is going to be overthrown. Hence, Iraq becomes very important.

This is taken directly from a paper written by the American Enterprise Institute, a neocon thinktank. The authors of this memo include Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith. All of whom are INSTRUMENTAL in deciding U.S. foreign policy. What's great is that lately the neocons are saying they were wrong. :P Soon after 9/11, the PNAC reports that had been avaliable to the public suddenly became hard to find.

;)

It seems there are some competing interests in the Bush administration. Bush and Cheney have close links with the Saudis and want to maintain good relations with their oil friends. However, neo-conservatives want to take a hardline stance against Saudi Arabia.

I think they can all agree that relying too heavily on Saudi oil is dangerous for the US economy as eventually, the Saudi royal family is going to be overthrown. Hence, Iraq becomes very important.

I wouldn't credit Bush (the puppet) with that much foresight. I think Rove or someone else must be behind this.
Most likely suspect?

Donald Rumsfeld.

It seems there are some competing interests in the Bush administration. Bush and Cheney have close links with the Saudis and want to maintain good relations with their oil friends. However, neo-conservatives want to take a hardline stance against Saudi Arabia.

I think they can all agree that relying too heavily on Saudi oil is dangerous for the US economy as eventually, the Saudi royal family is going to be overthrown. Hence, Iraq becomes very important.

Precisely.

Especially with the fact that we no longer have any militray bases in S.A anymore.
That means we cant immediately protect Saudi Oil Feilds, or the pumping stations.

So..we went into Iraq, to procure 1/5 of the worlds oil.

Oil is responsible for most products that we use in our lives. Including the keyboard that you are all using.
The Iraq war has everything to do with oil and safeguarding the way of life that we in the west are used to. That would include going to the cinema, driving your car, eating anything you wanted whenever you wanted, free vote! Freedom.
If the USA did not do this action this valuable resource would still be in the hands of a murderous dictator. And Iraq was the best place to start with. Iran, Syria ... should be next. Hopefully they will stop North Korea as well...
Thankfully the USA and in a little part UK did stand up and do their part. After all they do shoulder the responsibility of world policeman whether you like it or not. Remember WWII? Say thankyou you are not speaking German and saluting the swastika! Or after that the Soviet empire... now the players have changed... yes the game goes on... no it is the extremist Islam. Same game different player.

If you think that laying on your back doing nothing about the shit that is going on in this world, well hell, just look at Africa, where the UN does diddle squat! And hundreds of thousands die. Oh and there is plenty of oil in Africa as well. And if you then turn around and say well why isn't the US in Africa .... well if all the "liberals" would be more supportive, then perhaps there would be more support in the UN for taking more control of the problematic places in the world. But no, it's better I guess to say peace is the way and do nothing, whilst the enemy laughs and kills and rapes kids like the poor kids in Russia.

rant over!

Here is one article from Berkley:
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html...

While this article states the importance of oil to our society (you can not live without oil), it does nothing more than speculate as to what the real reason for going to war.

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14&notFound=true...

Again, mere speculation. The article goes to lengths explaining how important oil is to the US (and the world, have I mentioned you can not live without oil?)

Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1270414,00.html...

Begin to see the pattern of this so called proof? Speculation, not only as to what the reason for war was, but also speculation as to what affect switching oil from dollars to euro's would have. The guardian seems to be saying that the US would collapse and revert to some dark ages type of country.

University of Wisconsin
http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/philligr.html...

This one even brings into question the first Gulf War. Perhaps Im misremembering but after expelling Saddam from Kuwait, didnt we leave him to his designs in Iraq? If oil was the reason for this war, why didnt we do what many many people in the US were clamoring for, and "drive to Baghdad and drive Saddam out". This article also mentions that "Oil fields were the first places in Iraq to be occupied by the U.S. and U.K. troops in the first hours of the 2003 war." I guess the writer has forgotten his history. What was one of the first thing Saddam did in the 91 war? Fire the oil wells. That would have been environmentally wonderful if he had done that again, wouldnt you agree?

Interesting Little Thing:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn01142004.html...

Yet more speculation. As to the "one of the most explosive documents in the history of imperial conspiracy" it was a document about the distribution of Iraqi oil after a war. Let me ask you this tho, dont you think it's a good idea to be prepared for every contingency? At this point, Iraq and Saddam had been violating UN resolutions for nearly 10 years. Saddam had been usurping the oil for food program with the help of France and Russia for their individual gains. Saddam had proven himself time and time again, ready willing and able to do whatever he wished to cause harm to those who met his ire. I personally am glad that this administration had the foresight to plan for all contingencies.

And numerous books...[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the books would be better "proof" as those articles fall flat in that department.

Could you list those books?

Oh, and one last time, it is impossible for you, me, anyone in the "1st" world to live without oil. Oil is unfortunately one of the most important substances in our lives today.

Look, I do believe that there can be a peaceful world.. you know, one without crime, war and above all government corruption.

I can also belive that America would invade that country because those bastards would never see it coming... :sniper:

But seriously, there has been a major war in the world every decade for the last 100 years. Fool yourselves as you might, but no matter who is in charge, there will always be a war, and sure as not, America or Britan or Australia or some other 'leading country' will be stepping in to 'help them out'. War is a fact that we have to live with... get used to it.

Holy wars: Basically you're killing each other to see who has a better imaginary friend.

Thinking we went to war just for oil is just as idiotic as thinking we didn't go to war for oil at all. Iraq has alot of oil, so yes, factor. But it also has a huge impact on the region. A democrat, free Iraq will go a long way to reshaping the middle east, which has been a thorn in the side of the modern world at least through all of the 1900s. People who think WMD weren't an issue are kidding themselves too. The greatest threat to all the major world powers right now is no longer outright war. The greatest threat is some Islamic extremist with a suit case nuke walking into NY or Muscow or Paris or London and turning several million people into a pile of ash. Outside of destroying the world economy, it's liable to spark the third and final world war as nations react badly to the event.

Thinking we went to war just for oil is just as idiotic as thinking we didn't go to war for oil at all. Iraq has alot of oil, so yes, factor. But it also has a huge impact on the region. A democrat, free Iraq will go a long way to reshaping the middle east, which has been a thorn in the side of the modern world at least through all of the 1900s. People who think WMD weren't an issue are kidding themselves too. The greatest threat to all the major world powers right now is no longer outright war. The greatest threat is some Islamic extremist with a suit case nuke walking into NY or Muscow or Paris or London and turning several million people into a pile of ash. Outside of destroying the world economy, it's liable to spark the third and final world war as nations react badly to the event.

I suppose the fact that these WMDs were imaginary is of no importance? Likewise that the WMDs Saddam deployed in the past on his own people and on the Iranians were used with the smiling connivance of the Western powers who only found him to be "the greatest threat to world peace since Hitler" when they were floundering around looking for a new enemy after the Soviets threw the game in 1990?

As you say, though, oil was and is a major factor. As the wells start to run dry, and as we find out that more and more of the various "reserves" are as imaginary as the WMDs, it's going to happen more and more often. Given what this war has done to the price and availability of the stuff, it's revealed as a fundamentally stupid tactic by a fundamentally stupid regime, a product of a panicking oil junkie finding out that his supply of gear is about to be cut off.

Can anyone give me proof that Bush is in Iraq just for the oil? Or is that just some wild accusation that someone made up?

America did not protect any buildings from looters during the early stages of the war. Building that had governmental importance, were important on the business or contained rare atifacts and expensive peices of art were left for looters but the oil refinery was heavily protected by soldiers. Wonder why...

I suppose the fact that these WMDs were imaginary is of no importance? Likewise that the WMDs Saddam deployed in the past on his own people and on the Iranians were used with the smiling connivance of the Western powers who only found him to be "the greatest threat to world peace since Hitler" when they were floundering around looking for a new enemy after the Soviets threw the game in 1990?

You know everybody thought he had them. Even the governments that disagreed with us on the war believed he still had the WMD. He certainly had them before. He certainly had aspirations to still have them. Remember post war when they unburied a nuclear centerfuge from a garden?

Can anyone give me proof that Bush is in Iraq just for the oil? Or is that just some wild accusation that someone made up?

Um, wasn't Bush the one campaigning for domestic oil? I believe he still is. We have a 15-billion barrel reserve in Alaska. What do we need their oil for?

You know everybody thought he had them. Even the governments that disagreed with us on the war believed he still had the WMD. He certainly had them before. He certainly had aspirations to still have them. Remember post war when they unburied a nuclear centerfuge from a garden?

No, I don't know that. I know that the majority of the international community wasn't persuaded by the US and UK "evidence", which consisted mostly of some inconclusive satellite photos of some trucks, an old student essay downloaded off the internet and jazzed up a bit (but not spellchecked), and Donald Rumsfeld's repeated claims that "we know what he's got and where they are", made while waving vaguely at a large-scale map. I know that the majority of the international community -- like many members of the US and UK intelligence community -- were highly skeptical of the claims being made and wanted to give the UN inspectors in Iraq more time to check them out. But the "Coalition" nations just couldn't wait, and rushed to invade, because apparently we were just 45 minutes away from destruction. And yet, after over 10,000 deaths, we still haven't found anything that even looks like a WMD -- with the possible exception of some rusting bits of nondescript piping, and a few gas shells that date back either to the good-buddy Saddam days of the 1980s, or even to the UK's stockpiling of chemical weapons in the region in the 1920s.

A lot of people suspected that Saddam might have some chemical and biological weapons. Only a very few seemed to think this warranted immediate invasion. But it's true, he had them before, and used them before. Why wasn't this a monstrous threat to world peace back then? Remember, back when the USA was supplying Saddam with satellite photos to help him use his WMDs more effectively? Apparently when he was gassing his own people and at the height of his murderous power, the USA, and the UK, and the French, and the West in general, and indeed the Soviet Union too didn't give even the tiniest mouse-sized shit about Saddam and his toys. Odd, no?

Is there any oil in North Korea?

Are there any United States troops in North Korea?

A lot of people suspected that Saddam might have some chemical and biological weapons. Only a very few seemed to think this warranted immediate invasion. But it's true, he had them before, and used them before. Why wasn't this a monstrous threat to world peace back then? Remember, back when the USA was supplying Saddam with satellite photos to help him use his WMDs more effectively? Apparently when he was gassing his own people and at the height of his murderous power, the USA, and the UK, and the French, and the West in general, and indeed the Soviet Union too didn't give even the tiniest mouse-sized shit about Saddam and his toys. Odd, no?

Not really that odd. The western world's relationship started to sour with Saddam after his use of chemical weapons in the 80s. Saying the US was supplying satelite images to help him use chemical weapons is just a crock. However in the 80s Saddam giving WMD to terrorists groups wasn't really a very likely scenario. Present day is a much different story however. The greatest threat to most nations is no longer outight war, but suitcase WMD and terrorists.

Is that no one is mentioning something critical:

Iraq switched their oil to the Euro following the rest of OPEC.

This hurt the American dollar even more than it's already hurting.

Within days of declaring "victory" in Iraq, Bush authorized an order to switch the oil back to being valued in dollars.

Now--this is clearly detriemental to Iraq and Oil, as it links their oil to a falling currency instead of a rising one.

It also makes the big bucks for us...

Can anyone give me proof that Bush is in Iraq just for the oil? Or is that just some wild accusation that someone made up?

Oil=gasoline, among many others.


OK, so, Former President Ronald Reagan dies in early June, and gas prices plummet from $2 a gallon to about $1.45 a gallon throughout June and into the first four days of July. On July 5th, as the US ends its official month of mourning, gas prices raise back to nearly $2 a gallon.

Who is behind it, if not Bush?

~AOK

Grebonia--

I don't know about satellite based imagery. I do know we were supplying them with the chemical weapons we discovered. (Mustard gas).

Yes, the rest of the world was supporting Iraq--esp. when they were at war with Iran.

While this article states the importance of oil to our society (you can not live without oil), it does nothing more than speculate as to what the real reason for going to war.



Again, mere speculation. The article goes to lengths explaining how important oil is to the US (and the world, have I mentioned you can not live without oil?)



Begin to see the pattern of this so called proof? Speculation, not only as to what the reason for war was, but also speculation as to what affect switching oil from dollars to euro's would have. The guardian seems to be saying that the US would collapse and revert to some dark ages type of country.



This one even brings into question the first Gulf War. Perhaps Im misremembering but after expelling Saddam from Kuwait, didnt we leave him to his designs in Iraq? If oil was the reason for this war, why didnt we do what many many people in the US were clamoring for, and "drive to Baghdad and drive Saddam out". This article also mentions that "Oil fields were the first places in Iraq to be occupied by the U.S. and U.K. troops in the first hours of the 2003 war." I guess the writer has forgotten his history. What was one of the first thing Saddam did in the 91 war? Fire the oil wells. That would have been environmentally wonderful if he had done that again, wouldnt you agree?



Yet more speculation. As to the "one of the most explosive documents in the history of imperial conspiracy" it was a document about the distribution of Iraqi oil after a war. Let me ask you this tho, dont you think it's a good idea to be prepared for every contingency? At this point, Iraq and Saddam had been violating UN resolutions for nearly 10 years. Saddam had been usurping the oil for food program with the help of France and Russia for their individual gains. Saddam had proven himself time and time again, ready willing and able to do whatever he wished to cause harm to those who met his ire. I personally am glad that this administration had the foresight to plan for all contingencies.

And numerous books...

Perhaps the books would be better "proof" as those articles fall flat in that department.

Could you list those books?

Oh, and one last time, it is impossible for you, me, anyone in the "1st" world to live without oil. Oil is unfortunately one of the most important substances in our lives today.[/QUOTE]


Here are the books:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785262717/qid=1094571063/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-0009137-4696074?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560255021/qid=1094571063/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl14/002-0009137-4696074?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

and I've seen some more....

Of course it's speculation, it's hard to prove motive for anything. How do you do it in a murder trial?

You don't say I know for a fact that he was jealous that his wife was cheating on him. You say his wife was cheating on him which might have given him motive to kill her.

On how important oil is, that was never the question.

Grebonia--

I don't know about satellite based imagery. I do know we were supplying them with the chemical weapons we discovered. (Mustard gas).

Yes, the rest of the world was supporting Iraq--esp. when they were at war with Iran.

I would say rather that the US Government didn't block the sale of equipment, materials and know how in chemical weapons from US firms to Iraq. I would also say that German firms provided more than all other countries combined. The truth though is at the time Saddam was a regional opposition to Iran, which all the western world felt was a greater threat, so people turned a blind eye. Such is the nature of governments....of all governemnts. Europe is just as guilty if not more so of it. Post Gulf War 1 however, Saddam having any WMD or any know-how to pass on to anti-western groups or governments became the larger threat to the US. Anti-US and anti-Bush people keep trying to paint a sinister picture of the US in all of this, but the truth is we have acted no more sinisterly than anybody else...

Saddam was a threat to his own people; whether or not he's a threat to us I don't think I'll ever know

Not really that odd. The western world's relationship started to sour with Saddam after his use of chemical weapons in the 80s. Saying the US was supplying satelite images to help him use chemical weapons is just a crock.

Really. And of course you have solid reasons for believing that the US would not help an ally fighting a war against one of the USA's enemies. (Iran, in case you've forgotten -- although the whole Iran-Contra stuff further muddies the already sordid picture of US policy in the 1980s. Remember the Contras? Horrible, evil, vicious terrorists, responsible for slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and children, and supported by the USA? Welcome to the realpolitik world.)

Sorry for the complete cut-and-paste here, but the New York Times site requires a subscription:

August 18, 2002
Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas
By PATRICK E. TYLER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for "regime change" in Iraq.

The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.

During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.

The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence."

"I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred."

Later, he added, "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons."

Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.

Iraq shared its battle plans with the Americans, without admitting the use of chemical weapons, the military officers said. But Iraq's use of chemical weapons, already established at that point, became more evident in the war's final phase.

Saudi Arabia played a crucial role in pressing the Reagan administration to offer aid to Iraq out of concern that Iranian commanders were sending waves of young volunteers to overrun Iraqi forces. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, then and now, met with President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and then told officials of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency that Iraq's military command was ready to accept American aid.

In early 1988, after the Iraqi Army, with American planning assistance, retook the Fao Peninsula in an attack that reopened Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf, a defense intelligence officer, Lt. Col. Rick Francona, now retired, was sent to tour the battlefield with Iraqi officers, the American military officers said.

He reported that Iraq had used chemical weapons to cinch its victory, one former D.I.A. official said. Colonel Francona saw zones marked off for chemical contamination, and containers for the drug atropine scattered around, indicating that Iraqi soldiers had taken injections to protect themselves from the effects of gas that might blow back over their positions. (Colonel Francona could not be reached for comment.)

C.I.A. officials supported the program to assist Iraq, though they were not involved. Separately, the C.I.A. provided Iraq with satellite photography of the war front.

Col. Walter P. Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time, said he would not discuss classified information, but added that both D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran.

"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. What Mr. Reagan's aides were concerned about, he said, was that Iran not break through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Colonel Lang asserted that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Senior Reagan administration officials did nothing to interfere with the continuation of the program, a former participant in the program said.

Iraq did turn its chemical weapons against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, but the intelligence officers say they were not involved in planning any of the military operations in which those assaults occurred. They said the reason was that there were no major Iranian troop concentrations in the north and the major battles where Iraq's military command wanted assistance were on the southern war front.

The Pentagon's battle damage assessments confirmed that Iraqi military commanders had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested. Iran claimed that it suffered thousands of deaths from chemical weapons.

The American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people involved at the time said in interviews.

Another former senior D.I.A. official who was an expert on the Iraqi military said the Reagan administration's treatment of the issue — publicly condemning Iraq's use of gas while privately acquiescing in its employment on the battlefield — was an example of the "Realpolitik" of American interests in the war.

The effort on behalf of Iraq "was heavily compartmented," a former D.I.A. official said, using the military jargon for restricting secrets to those who need to know them.

"Having gone through the 440 days of the hostage crisis in Iran," he said, "the period when we were the Great Satan, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down. That was the backdrop of the policy."

One officer said, "They had gotten better and better" and after a while chemical weapons "were integrated into their fire plan for any large operation, and it became more and more obvious."

A number of D.I.A. officers who took part in aiding Iraq more than a decade ago when its military was actively using chemical weapons, now say they believe that the United States should overthrow Mr. Hussein at some point. But at the time, they say, they all believed that their covert assistance to Mr. Hussein's military in the mid-1980's was a crucial factor in Iraq's victory in the war and the containment of a far more dangerous threat from Iran.

The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.

Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq and spoke out against Iraq's use of chemical arms, but Mr. Shultz, in his memoir, also alluded to the struggle in the administration.

"I was stunned to read an intelligence analysis being circulated within the administration that `we have demolished a budding relationship (with Iraq) by taking a tough position in opposition to chemical weapons,' " he wrote.

Mr. Shultz also wrote that he quarreled with William J. Casey, then the director of central intelligence, over whether the United States should press for a new chemical weapons ban at the Geneva Disarmament Conference. Mr. Shultz declined further comment.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

To further illustrate US complacency with Iraq's use of chemical weapons, either on Iranians or on Iraqi Kurds, think about this. On March 16, 1988 Iraqi helicopters dropped chemical weapons over the the Kurdish city of Halabja. Five thousand innocent civilians died in the first few hours. To their credit, the US Senate, outraged, passed the Prevention of Genocide Act in record time, a bill that imposed sweeping sanctions on Saddam's Iraq, most especially in the area of military assistance and hardware.

So far so good. What happened to the Prevention of Genocide Act? It was vetoed by smiling old Ronald Reagan. It never passed. 5,000 dead Kurds just didn't cut it for Ronnie. Neither did the other 25,000 that Saddam killed during the 1980s, when Donald Rumsfeld was meeting him for tea and anthrax and Western arms companies were queuing up to flog him jets and missiles and tanks.

However in the 80s Saddam giving WMD to terrorists groups wasn't really a very likely scenario. Present day is a much different story however. The greatest threat to most nations is no longer outight war, but suitcase WMD and terrorists.

OK. Let's ignore, for the moment, the fact that no link has ever been established between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda. Let's ignore the fact that, as a secular dictator, Saddam had a positive antipathy towards fundamentalist Muslims of any stripe. And let's ignore the paranoid airport fiction stuff about "suitcase WMDs". First and foremost, Saddam wasn't going to give WMDs to terrorists because he didn't have any WMDs.

Thinking we went to war just for oil is just as idiotic as thinking we didn't go to war for oil at all. Iraq has alot of oil, so yes, factor. But it also has a huge impact on the region. A democrat, free Iraq will go a long way to reshaping the middle east, which has been a thorn in the side of the modern world at least through all of the 1900s.

ah, but why do we care about reshaping the middle east and not, for example, africa? hmmm? the middle east is politically important for exactly one reason. and it aint the fact that it is sometimes unstable or run by a bunch of thugs.

I would say rather that the US Government didn't block the sale of equipment, materials and know how in chemical weapons from US firms to Iraq. I would also say that German firms provided more than all other countries combined. The truth though is at the time Saddam was a regional opposition to Iran, which all the western world felt was a greater threat, so people turned a blind eye. Such is the nature of governments....of all governemnts. Europe is just as guilty if not more so of it. Post Gulf War 1 however, Saddam having any WMD or any know-how to pass on to anti-western groups or governments became the larger threat to the US. Anti-US and anti-Bush people keep trying to paint a sinister picture of the US in all of this, but the truth is we have acted no more sinisterly than anybody else...

Please do not confuse "anti-Bush" with "anti-US". Bush is not the USA. He has not quite yet reached the manic heights of Louis XIV, though it's probably not for want of trying.

A further reason to see the invasion of Iraq as a foolish move is the judgement of intelligence officials that the world is now more, not less, dangerous. The whole debacle has been a huge shot in the arm for international terrorism. So... we have a war for oil, which has pushed oil prices to record highs, and a war against terror, which has increased and encouraged terrorism. Two for two.

ah, but why do we care about reshaping the middle east and not, for example, africa? hmmm? the middle east is politically important for exactly one reason. and it aint the fact that it is sometimes unstable or run by a bunch of thugs.

Ah... but those bunch of thugs are dangerous becuase they're rich from all the oil. We're not fighting peasant-warriors; these people are backed by millions of dollars which affords them weapons and advanced training. We're taking out the funding sources to render them as dangerous as "for example, africa".

I've had 3 history teachers that have each told me one main thing.

Follow the money.

Money and Religion are the two main factors on diplomacy, etc.

Don't you think that even Religion is used to justify the money seeking? ;)

No matter how you spin it, there is absolutely no way to demonstably prove that Bush or Cheney will benefit financially from the war in Iraq.

Even Cheney's Halliburton holdings, which remain in a trust that he can't touch while he's in government service, doesn't mean he's going to make money - particularly since his holdings are in the form of stock options.

Have any of you looked at Halliburton's stock lately? When Cheney was elected Vice President, it was trading at around $50 a share. In the middle of the Iraq war, it was trading at $20, up from the $10 a share it had dropped to in January of 2002 after the September 11th market drop. It's only trading at $30 now. So since he's taken office, he's lost money on his Halliburton stock holdings.

The Michael Moore links between the Bush family and Saudi Royal Family are also questionable, particularly since the Saudi's offered Moore full access to their information and interviews with family members and he turned them down.

The War in Iraq could only result in an increase in the amount of oil entering the economy, once the infrastructure (which has been neglected for the last decade) is in place to bring the oil out. And an increase in the amount of oil on the market means that prices DECREASE. How does that benefit Big Oil?

These ill-considered and completely unfounded conspiracy theories destract us all from the real issues in this race.

OK. Let's ignore, for the moment, the fact that no link has ever been established between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda. Let's ignore the fact that, as a secular dictator, Saddam had a positive antipathy towards fundamentalist Muslims of any stripe. And let's ignore the paranoid airport fiction stuff about "suitcase WMDs". First and foremost, Saddam wasn't going to give WMDs to terrorists because he didn't have any WMDs.

Ignore, for the moment, that Saddam has threatened his neighbors in the past. Let's ignore the fact that he mass-murdered his own people. And let's ignore the majority of Iraqis who praise our soldiers as they pass for finally helping them topple Saddam as they asked us to do in the '90s. Saddam wasn't a bad guy... he was never planning to do anything wrong. <sarcasm alert>

ah, but why do we care about reshaping the middle east and not, for example, africa? hmmm? the middle east is politically important for exactly one reason. and it aint the fact that it is sometimes unstable or run by a bunch of thugs.
Actually, we do care about reshaping places other than the Middle East : Yugoslavia, Haiti, Liberia, Somalia...

I gurantee that Bush isn't woried about the Saudi's, his friends.

I do agree that this isn't a one-faced war. This has multiple issues and multiple consequences.

Anyone who doesn't worry about the Saudis has missed the larger picture, I'm afraid. The entire country is under the threat of economic collapse thanks to the huge royal family drawing (and wasting) from the treasury, leading to extremist groups making inroads to the government. Plus Saudi Arabia has used its oil money to not only fund terrorism directly but to also ship local extremists to other countries, where while they do not bother the Saudis anymore, are something of a threat to the rest of us.

The House of Saud sold traded oil for our military support a long time ago. The agreement has been fraying for a long time now, and recent events have made us incredibly unliked there (we invaded a fellow Islamic nation, from their territory, where they already do not want us because they feel we despoil said land's sacrity). Perhaps very soon something large and nasty will finally erupt and the world will have to pick up the pieces, given that Saudi Arabia not only has the largest proven reserves, by far, of any nation, but also by far the largest production capacity.

They are not so much friends as coerced allies, and even that wears thin to them now.

Really. And of course you have solid reasons for believing that the US would not help an ally fighting a war against one of the USA's enemies. (Iran, in case you've forgotten -- although the whole Iran-Contra stuff further muddies the already sordid picture of US policy in the 1980s. Remember the Contras? Horrible, evil, vicious terrorists, responsible for slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and children, and supported by the USA? Welcome to the realpolitik world.)

That's right, because all those Castro/Moscow supported fighters were a whole lot better. Let's be honest, it was an ugly bloody fight across several central American nations. Neither side was very nice, one was backed by the Soviets and Cuba, so we backed the other.

So far so good. What happened to the Prevention of Genocide Act? It was vetoed by smiling old Ronald Reagan. It never passed. 5,000 dead Kurds just didn't cut it for Ronnie. Neither did the other 25,000 that Saddam killed during the 1980s, when Donald Rumsfeld was meeting him for tea and anthrax and Western arms companies were queuing up to flog him jets and missiles and tanks.

I actually believe that it died in Congress, although Reagan said he would veto it. I believe it passed in the Senate and wasn't ratified by the House before Congress adjourn. There are alot of reasons for this. Primarily was the idea that the US already had too many enemies in the region (see Iran), and that Reagan preferred to steer Iraq with a carrot instead of a stick. The US and the whole western world had alot of hope for Saddam and a seqular Iraq. That may be hard to understand now but not really from an 80s stand point. Welcome to world politics.

OK. Let's ignore, for the moment, the fact that no link has ever been established between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda. Let's ignore the fact that, as a secular dictator, Saddam had a positive antipathy towards fundamentalist Muslims of any stripe. And let's ignore the paranoid airport fiction stuff about "suitcase WMDs". First and foremost, Saddam wasn't going to give WMDs to terrorists because he didn't have any WMDs.

<Sigh> There is a link between Saddam and terrorists. They had approached him previously. The success of 9/11 certainly could have made him more receptive. Suitcase WMD are not paranoia. The Soviets were developing them during the 80s. And even if Saddam didn't have the materials, he certainly had the know how to pass on.

ah, but why do we care about reshaping the middle east and not, for example, africa? hmmm? the middle east is politically important for exactly one reason. and it aint the fact that it is sometimes unstable or run by a bunch of thugs.

When was the last time you heard about African terrorists attacking US interests? By the way the ME is also politically important because of the state of Israel.

The War in Iraq could only result in an increase in the amount of oil entering the economy, once the infrastructure (which has been neglected for the last decade) is in place to bring the oil out. And an increase in the amount of oil on the market means that prices DECREASE. How does that benefit Big Oil?

By giving them more oil to sell, at appropriate prices, in an era when the stuff is rapidly becoming scarce. If more oil was bad for oil companies, why do they go to so much time and effort to find the stuff, and why are they always so delighted when they find more of it?

Please do not confuse "anti-Bush" with "anti-US". Bush is not the USA. He has not quite yet reached the manic heights of Louis XIV, though it's probably not for want of trying.

I was in fact referring to them as two seperate groups... ;)

Actually, we do care about reshaping places other than the Middle East : Yugoslavia, Haiti, Liberia, Somalia...

i didn't say that the middle east was the only region that is politically important for one reason or another.

Not really that odd. The western world's relationship started to sour with Saddam after his use of chemical weapons in the 80s. Not quite. After Saddam killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons in 1988, the US actually increased economic aid to Iraq. The relationship only soured when Saddam directly threatened Western oil interests by invading Kuwait.

Saying the US was supplying satelite images to help him use chemical weapons is just a crock. The US supplied Iraq with satellite images of Iranian military deployments and positions.

However in the 80s Saddam giving WMD to terrorists groups wasn't really a very likely scenario. Present day is a much different story however. The greatest threat to most nations is no longer outight war, but suitcase WMD and terrorists. Why is the threat greater now?

Don't you think that even Religion is used to justify the money seeking? ;)

True.. :D

That's right, because all those Castro/Moscow supported fighters were a whole lot better. Let's be honest, it was an ugly bloody fight across several central American nations. Neither side was very nice, one was backed by the Soviets and Cuba, so we backed the other. The Sandinistas were not perfect but they were angels compared to Somoza and the Contra terrorists. Human rights records agree with me.


<Sigh> There is a link between Saddam and terrorists. They had approached him previously. The success of 9/11 certainly could have made him more receptive. Suitcase WMD are not paranoia. The Soviets were developing them during the 80s. And even if Saddam didn't have the materials, he certainly had the know how to pass on. Saddam was decades away from building nukes. His nuclear program had been dismantled in the early 1990s. Secondly, Saddam had no history of passing weapons onto terrorist groups, so there is no reason to think he would do so in the future. Besides, his support for terrorism was limited to anti-Israeli groups.

Saddam's prime concern was maintaining power in Iraq. Supporting anti-US terrorists after 9/11 would have been suicide. Not even Saddam was that dumb.

Despite the evidence, I can't believe you're still claiming Iraq constituted a threat. Especially at a time when North Korea has admitted building nukes and is developing ICBMs as we speak but yet, the Bush administration does nothing.

By the way the ME is also politically important because of the state of Israel. How exactly is Israel important? It is a burden on the US economy, not an asset.

By giving them more oil to sell, at appropriate prices, in an era when the stuff is rapidly becoming scarce. If more oil was bad for oil companies, why do they go to so much time and effort to find the stuff, and why are they always so delighted when they find more of it?

The oil being pumped out of Iraq is done so by state run oil companies, like Southern Oil in Basra. Western oil companies have not had access to Iraq since 1972 when all oil interests in Iraq were nationalized, so they won't be making any money off the Iraqi oil right now.

Granted, down the road, a friendly Iraq may open itself up to competition, but right now, the only people benefitting from Iraqi oil production are the Iraqis.

That's right, because all those Castro/Moscow supported fighters were a whole lot better. Let's be honest, it was an ugly bloody fight across several central American nations. Neither side was very nice, one was backed by the Soviets and Cuba, so we backed the other.

Well, since you ask, the Sandanistas at least had the benefit of being democratically elected. But of course it was an ugly bloody fight. The fact that international politics played its part excuses nobody. The greatest failure of the USA and the West in general post-WWII was to imagine that the fight against the USSR was an economic one, instead of a political one. The enemies of the democracies were, are and always will be the dictatorships, whatever economic theories they expound. The West should have supported democracies, left-wing or otherwise, as bastions of freedom, and opposed dictatorships, right-wing or otherwise, as enemies of humanity. We did not, and sowed the seeds of our own current misfortunes.

This is the core tragedy, the great missed opportunity of the 20th century. There is a faint hope that the events in Iraq might lead to a democracy being established there, but, given the artificial nature of Iraq and the USA's (understandable) antagonism towards Balkanisation, I'm not holding my breath. In any case, I'm drifting off the subject here: but I agree with you, no developed nation is blameless in the catalogue of slaughter across the planet. Worse, those of us in democracies are ultimately responsible for the actions of our governments.

I actually believe that it died in Congress, although Reagan said he would veto it. I believe it passed in the Senate and wasn't ratified by the House before Congress adjourn. There are alot of reasons for this. Primarily was the idea that the US already had too many enemies in the region (see Iran), and that Reagan preferred to steer Iraq with a carrot instead of a stick. The US and the whole western world had alot of hope for Saddam and a seqular Iraq. That may be hard to understand now but not really from an 80s stand point. Welcome to world politics.

You're right, my mistake, it died in Congress -- although largely because Reagan said that he would veto it.

There was no hope, though, for a secular Iraq under Saddam. He was a monster then, and we knew it -- he was just our monster, and we didn't care what he did to his own people as long as our companies got the contracts and we got the oil. Don't pretend that anyone in any Western government ever thought that Saddam might be a force for positive change: that's bullshit.

<Sigh> There is a link between Saddam and terrorists. They had approached him previously. The success of 9/11 certainly could have made him more receptive. Suitcase WMD are not paranoia. The Soviets were developing them during the 80s. And even if Saddam didn't have the materials, he certainly had the know how to pass on.

So either the terrorists didn't get any joy from Saddam -- and I'd like to see some evidence to back up the claim that they "approached" him -- or the invasion was hopelessly too late?

Suitcase WMDs are in the same internet conspiracy-theory league as "red mercury". There is no evidence that they currently exist, or even ever did. Although it depends on what you mean by a "suitcase WMD". The most glamourous version is of course the briefcase nuke, which is utterly beyond the resources of Saddam's tin-pot state (and probably everyone else's, too). A suitcase full of sarin or some other toxic compound has the capacity to kill lots of peoiple, if properly deployed -- although frankly I don't think any terrorist would need Iraqi help getting this.

Further, why would Saddam supply WMDs to terrorists who would be just as likely to use them to try to overthrow him? What do you mean when you say that "the success of 9/11 certainly could have made him more receptive"? Receptive to what? What benefit, other than schadenfreude, could Saddam possibly gain from 9/11 or any other attacks on US or western interests? He's a psycho, I'll give you that, but he's not stupid. Hell, he even waited for permission from US ambassador April Glaspie before invading Kuwait in 1990.

Why is the threat greater now?

Because after 9/11 we cannot ignore the threat that foreign terror poses to the US. No one wants to be in charge if we get hit with another terrorist attack, and by keeping the focus on terrorism overseas, we can keep it away from the US.

Bush's doctrine was to remove any government that is sympathetic and harbors terrorists. Afghanistan was the direct threat, as they were hiding bin Laden. Iraq was merely the easiest terrorist friendly nation to make an example of - we've fought them before, and we know how they operate, and the intelligence regarding their WMD advances was getting steadily scarier since 1998. Whether or not it was true or BS we don't know yet, but it appears that much of it was BS. That doesn't make the reasoning behind going to war in Iraq less valid. It merely means the intelligence was wrong - this isn't the first time. The CIA totally blew the August coup in the Soviet Union, and they totally blew the Berlin Wall coming down. They're not fortune tellers. But they're the best we've got, and the President made his decision based on that information and in keeping with his already publicly discussed priorities.

And numerous books... Indeed. Read some of Zbigniew Brzezinski's books and the whole situation will become very clear.

The oil being pumped out of Iraq is done so by state run oil companies, like Southern Oil in Basra. Western oil companies have not had access to Iraq since 1972 when all oil interests in Iraq were nationalized, so they won't be making any money off the Iraqi oil right now.

Granted, down the road, a friendly Iraq may open itself up to competition, but right now, the only people benefitting from Iraqi oil production are the Iraqis.

Yes, but the oil industry doesn't begin and end with piping crude into a tanker. You have to do stuff with it afterwards. Who do you think will be doing that?

i long for the day when we give up our dependance on oil
then we can stop trying to run whole sections of the world just so we can steal their petroleum

I was in fact referring to them as two seperate groups... ;)

True, my bad, it's becoming an instinctive response. :)

Not quite. After Saddam killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons in 1988, the US actually increased economic aid to Iraq. The relationship only soured when Saddam directly threatened Western oil interests by invading Kuwait.

The passing of the Prevention of Genocide Act in the Senate is a pretty good indicator of the souring relationship....

The US supplied Iraq with satellite images of Iranian military deployments and positions.

Which is a far cry from the US giving satelite images to help him use Chemical Weapons.

The Sandinistas were not perfect but they were angels compared to Somoza and the Contra terrorists. Human rights records agree with me.

Yeah, tell that to the people who lived in Nicaragua's Atlantic Coast, which didn't support the Sandinistas revolution. Or the 75,000 people who died in the civil war they backed in El Salvador. Like I said, both groups were involved in making it a bloody, ugly fight.

Saddam's prime concern was maintaining power in Iraq. Supporting anti-US terrorists after 9/11 would have been suicide. Not even Saddam was that dumb.

You mean like firing on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones on almost a daily basis? Give me a break, Saddam has always been that dumb.

Despite the evidence, I can't believe you're still claiming Iraq constituted a threat. Especially at a time when North Korea has admitted building nukes and is developing ICBMs as we speak but yet, the Bush administration does nothing.

I am not disputing the NK problem as being more serious than Iraq at all. However, I think Clinton let the NK problem slip beyond the point of an easy military resoltion. Different problems have to be addressed in different ways. One of those for NK was removing ourselves from the anti-ballistic missile treaty. If we have a reasonable defense against NK's small number of ICBMs, preemptively striking their nuclear facilities becomes an option again.

How exactly is Israel important? It is a burden on the US economy, not an asset.

I really need to explain why Israel is an important political issue of the middle east?

Can you give us proof he did not ?

Because after 9/11 we cannot ignore the threat that foreign terror poses to the US. No one wants to be in charge if we get hit with another terrorist attack, and by keeping the focus on terrorism overseas, we can keep it away from the US. Then why do you ignore the threat of Saudi Arabia?

Bush's doctrine was to remove any government that is sympathetic and harbors terrorists. Iraq was merely the easiest terrorist friendly nation to make an example of - we've fought them before, and we know how they operate, and the intelligence regarding their WMD advances was getting steadily scarier since 1998. No offence but please, cease with the simplistic ideological bullshit and enter the real world. Any idiot can tell you Iraq's conventional and non-conventional military capabilities continued to weaken after the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's 'WMD threat' was a myth. UNSCOM believed Iraq had been disarmed and continued to state this up until 2003, although they were ignored by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Time and again people like Cheney and Rumsfeld told blatant lies to the media about Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Alot of Arab nations, including US allies, support Palestinian groups against Israel. Iraq's support for terrorism was limited to groups like Hamas. Saddam's secular regime had no interest in playing with fire and maintaining links with Islamic extremists like Bin Laden.

If Bush wants to fight terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should be his first targets.

the President made his decision based on that information and in keeping with his already publicly discussed priorities. The Bush administration made its decision to attack Iraq and then looked for evidence to support its stance. The decision to invade had already been made before Bush (or Cheney most likely) even began looking at the information.

Hell, he even waited for permission from US ambassador April Glaspie before invading Kuwait in 1990.

I'd like to point out that it is a well documented fact that he promised Glaspie in their last meeting that he would not invade Kuwait until after they had met again.

Yes, but the oil industry doesn't begin and end with piping crude into a tanker. You have to do stuff with it afterwards. Who do you think will be doing that?

There hasn't been an oil refinery built in the US since the 1970s. I don't expect it's going to get done over here.

In fact, it looks as if the Iraqi Oil Ministry is planning on doing it there - they've already announced plans to build 4 new refineries.

Suitcase WMDs are in the same internet conspiracy-theory league as "red mercury". There is no evidence that they currently exist, or even ever did. Although it depends on what you mean by a "suitcase WMD". The most glamourous version is of course the briefcase nuke, which is utterly beyond the resources of Saddam's tin-pot state (and probably everyone else's, too). A suitcase full of sarin or some other toxic compound has the capacity to kill lots of peoiple, if properly deployed -- although frankly I don't think any terrorist would need Iraqi help getting this.

The late governor of Krasnoyarsk Krai and former Russian Security Council Secretary, retired General Alexander Lebed in 1997 or 1998 released that several former Soviet Union suitcase nukes were missing.

So either the terrorists didn't get any joy from Saddam -- and I'd like to see some evidence to back up the claim that they "approached" him -- or the invasion was hopelessly too late?

Saddam did help Ansar al-Islam which has links to al-qaida, but also the 9/11 Commision also has said Bin Laden approached Saddam and asked to set up terrorist camps in Iraq.

By giving them more oil to sell, at appropriate prices, in an era when the stuff is rapidly becoming scarce. If more oil was bad for oil companies, why do they go to so much time and effort to find the stuff, and why are they always so delighted when they find more of it?

How is it you can say that it's "rapidly becoming scarce" when Iraq's reserve alone would last for a reported 576 years?

The passing of the Prevention of Genocide Act in the Senate is a pretty good indicator of the souring relationship.... So you're denying President Bush Snr. increased economic loans to Iraq in 1989?


Which is a far cry from the US giving satelite images to help him use Chemical Weapons. Yes and no. The information was given to aid Iraq in its conflict against Iran. It doesn't really matter how you kill the enemy on the battlefield.



Or the 75,000 people who died in the civil war they backed in El Salvador. Like I said, both groups were involved in making it a bloody, ugly fight. The Sandinistas' involvement in the civil war in El Salvador was extremely limited.


You mean like firing on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones on almost a daily basis? Give me a break, Saddam has always been that dumb. Iraq had every right to fire on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones since they were not UN sanctioned. Therefore, those aircraft were violating Iraq's sovereignty.


However, I think Clinton let the NK problem slip beyond the point of an easy military resoltion. Different problems have to be addressed in different ways. One of those for NK was removing ourselves from the anti-ballistic missile treaty. If we have a reasonable defense against NK's small number of ICBMs, preemptively striking their nuclear facilities becomes an option again. How is this Clinton's fault exactly? At least he attempted to resolve the situation unlike the Bush administration, which ignores the problem hoping it will go away. It was only during the Bush administration that North Korea actually admitted it was building nukes. North Korea then removed itself from anti-nuclear treaties and began openly developing ICBMs and nuclear warheads. Bush's response? Pointless talks which North Korea doesn't even attend while instead invading defenseless nations like Iraq.



I really need to explain why Israel is an important political issue of the middle east? Because fundamentalist christians believe Israel has some holy significance?

Nobody in the US really cares about the Palestinians either, so don't bring that up.

I'd like to point out that it is a well documented fact that he promised Glaspie in their last meeting that he would not invade Kuwait until after they had met again.

It's not that well-documented. I can't find any reference to it. Perhaps you have a link, or a reference?

All I've got is the following quote, from a transcript (http://www.dvmx.com/glaspie.html) of Glaspie's conversation with Saddam:

I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

Of course I don't believe that Glaspie was giving Hussein "permission" to invade Kuwait, because Saddam never explicitly stated that he intended to -- I think this was merely a blunder by Glaspie, and not part of some conspiracy by the USA.

Then why do you ignore the threat of Saudi Arabia?

No offence but please, cease with the simplistic ideological bullshit and enter the real world. Any idiot can tell you Iraq's conventional and non-conventional military capabilities continued to weaken after the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's 'WMD threat' was a myth. UNSCOM believed Iraq had been disarmed and continued to state this up until 2003, although they were ignored by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Time and again people like Cheney and Rumsfeld told blatant lies to the media about Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Alot of Arab nations, including US allies, support Palestinian groups against Israel. Iraq's support for terrorism was limited to groups like Hamas. Saddam's secular regime had no interest in playing with fire and maintaining links with Islamic extremists like Bin Laden.

If Bush wants to fight terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should be his first targets.

The Bush administration made its decision to attack Iraq and then looked for evidence to support its stance. The decision to invade had already been made before Bush (or Cheney most likely) even began looking at the information.

On the Saudi front, I personally have always been for totally smacking Saudi Arabia around. I think they deserve it. Why the US hasn't yet is simple - the Saudis are nominally our allies, and as they control the two most holiest cities in Islam, we can't take direct action against them without reigning down a firestorm of anti-US Islamic opinion (not that it can get much worse). The only thing that would unite all of the competing aspects of Islam against us would be us taking any kind of action against Saudi Arabia.

I'm not spouting any ideological bullshit, and I'm firmly entrenched in the real world. Intelligence continued to pour in from 1991 through 2004 that Saddam was reconstituing both his military and his WMD capabilities. The fact that you've got two American administrations as well as the UN confirming this - despite UNSCOM's claims - prove that this wasn't ideologically based. Both Clinton Administration and Bush Administration officials viewed Iraq as a continued threat. Why the multiple UN Security Council resolutions if Iraq wasn't?

Hamas, Hezbollah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda - they all have links, if not in their operations, then in their fundraising. While they may be focused on Israel, they also represent a threat to American interests as well, so saying "they only blew up Israelis" as a reasoning behind why they weren't a threat to us is not valid. How many Americans have been killed in Israel as a result of "anti-Israeli" terror?

I agree that Pakistan doesn't deserve a pass, and they've been worse than most states on terror. But real world military issues resulted in our unlikely alliance with Pakistan - we needed ocean seaports to offload our military equipment to get into Afghanistan. Pakistan was the only country with land access to Afghanistan so they were the focus of our diplomatic efforts.

Trying to claim there was some kind of hidden agenda that resulted in America going to war with Iraq is a fools errand - there are dozens of reasons and all of them are public. The bottom line reason is that the President determined that Iraq was a threat to the vital national security interests of the United States - and that's his job. Congress voted him the authority to use force to remove the threat, and he did.

i long for the day when we give up our dependance on oil
then we can stop trying to run whole sections of the world just so we can steal their petroleum

Like I've said before, you simply can not live in a 1st world country without oil. As in you would not survive.

Iraq had every right to fire on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones since they were not UN sanctioned. Therefore, those aircraft were violating Iraq's sovereignty.



This is wrong. The no-fly zones were part of the agreement struck between Iraq and the Coalition forces in return for a ceasefire in 1991. They were completely legitimate, and Iraqi provocation in those zones was in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

EDIT:

Oops. The Northern no-fly zone was established after the war ended, but the no-fly zones weren't codified until UN resolution 688, and then they were recodified in resolution 1441.

But still - it's a stretch to say they were illegal.

So you're denying President Bush Snr. increased economic loans to Iraq in 1989?

Nope. I'm saying most politicians were beginning to look unfavorably on Saddam. Hence the relationship was starting to sour.

Yes and no. The information was given to aid Iraq in its conflict against Iran. It doesn't really matter how you kill the enemy on the battlefield.

Come on now, that's not what you said. You said the US gave Saddam satelite images to help him use chemical weapons.

Iraq had every right to fire on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones since they were not UN sanctioned. Therefore, those aircraft were violating Iraq's sovereignty.

Isn't that provoking the US though still? Which you claim he wasn't dumb enough to do....yet he still did it. As far as Iraq's sovereignty, when you on the losing side of a war, you tend to loose some of that.

How is this Clinton's fault exactly? At least he attempted to resolve the situation unlike the Bush administration, which ignores the problem hoping it will go away. It was only during the Bush administration that North Korea actually admitted it was building nukes. North Korea then removed itself from anti-nuclear treaties and began openly developing ICBMs and nuclear warheads. Bush's response? Pointless talks that North Korea doesn't even attend while instead invading defenseless nations like Iraq.

Well let's see, Clinton in effect paid NK to develop nukes. He setup an agreement with them that he had little or no way of verifying they were complying to, and guess what, they took his money and laughed all the way to the bank. So you think Bush should do the same thing?

The late governor of Krasnoyarsk Krai and former Russian Security Council Secretary, retired General Alexander Lebed in 1997 or 1998 released that several former Soviet Union suitcase nukes were missing. Ah yes, a retired general knows all. :rolleyes:



Saddam did help Ansar al-Islam which has links to al-qaida The US helps Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which have links to al-qaida.

but also the 9/11 Commision also has said Bin Laden approached Saddam and asked to set up terrorist camps in Iraq. Saddam's response? Fuck off Bin Laden!

Considering Bin Laden planned to overthrow Saddam in 1990, I would hardly consider them friends.

How is it you can say that it's "rapidly becoming scarce" when Iraq's reserve alone would last for a reported 576 years?

Source?

How is it you can say that it's "rapidly becoming scarce" when Iraq's reserve alone would last for a reported 576 years?

Because Iraq's reserves will NOT last for "576 years". You are sorely misinformed. Oil will, within the next couple of decades at best, reach the point where it is more expensive to extract than it is to sell. The fact that oil remains, bound up in tar sands or elsewhere, is neither here nor there. As an economic resource -- barring a revolution in extraction technology, which would require an effort better spent in finding a replacement for the stuff, IMO -- it is finished. See, for example, "Brace yourself for the end of cheap oil" (http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg17924061.100), New Scientist, August 2003.

Source?

Those string of articles first posted in this thread. Part of the underlying "reason" we went to war with Iraq.

Source?

Iraq's Oil Reserves: Untapped Potential
While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the work behind Saudi Arabia, EIA estimates that up to 90-percent of the county remains unexplored due to years of wars and sanctions. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world. However, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared to about 1 million wells in Texas alone.

EIA = Energy Information Administration, part of the Department of Energy.

The year number isn't in there, but still. That's a lot of oil.

Because Iraq's reserves will NOT last for "576 years". You are sorely misinformed. Oil will, within the next couple of decades at best, reach the point where it is more expensive to extract than it is to sell. The fact that oil remains, bound up in tar sands or elsewhere, is neither here nor there. As an economic resource -- barring a revolution in extraction technology, which would require an effort better spent in finding a replacement for the stuff, IMO -- it is finished. See, for example, "Brace yourself for the end of cheap oil" (http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg17924061.100), New Scientist, August 2003.

Im just using LiberalisticSocieties (hope I spelled that correctly, appologies if I didn't) sources back at y'all.

Come on now, that's not what you said. You said the US gave Saddam satelite images to help him use chemical weapons. I didn't state that, another poster did.



Well let's see, Clinton in effect paid NK to develop nukes. He setup an agreement with them that he had little or no way of verifying they were complying to, and guess what, they took his money and laughed all the way to the bank. Err....North Korea's nuclear facilities were put under UN control with UN inspectors on the ground monitoring North Korean activities. The Clinton deal was a good one. However, NK resumed nuclear development underground after the US failed to deliver the light water reactors it had promised several years earlier. How this failed to be detected for so long is unknown, although it is believed the Pakistanis provided NK with some help in hiding their resumed activities.

What has Bush done exactly? North Korea has openly defied the international community and Bush does nothing but 'talk' while North Korea becomes a nuclear power.

It's not that well-documented. I can't find any reference to it. Perhaps you have a link, or a reference?

Please note the portion in bold, and note that he did not wait for this meeting.

Saddam-Glaspie meeting

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

I didn't state that, another poster did.

Hehe, sorry, responding to alot fo stuff.... :D

The late governor of Krasnoyarsk Krai and former Russian Security Council Secretary, retired General Alexander Lebed in 1997 or 1998 released that several former Soviet Union suitcase nukes were missing.

Source for this? And do you think that we should now invade Russia?

Saddam did help Ansar al-Islam which has links to al-qaida, but also the 9/11 Commision also has said Bin Laden approached Saddam and asked to set up terrorist camps in Iraq.

Since bin Laden is on record as calling for the overthrow and death of Saddam Hussein, one would assume that the deal fell through. Again, though, what benefit could Saddam hope to obtain by backing WMD attacks on Iraq?

To date, the only WMD attacks in the USA have been the several anthrax cases of a couple of years ago. Many people have seriously suggested that the perpetrator is a scientist working within the US Defence industry (article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2196008.stm)). What's happened about that, by the way? Have they actually arrested anyone for that? Or did the lack of any connection to Islamic terror groups make the whole thing a bit too embarrassing, and so they're just quietly trying to forget about it?

Ah yes, a retired general knows all.

Yeah, because what would a former Russian general know about their military technology anyways.... :rolleyes:

What has Bush done exactly? North Korea has openly defied the international community and Bush does nothing but 'talk' while North Korea becomes a nuclear power.

Have you seen the results for the I believe it is called Arrow anti-balistic missile system that they just recently successfully tested off of California to destroy an ICBM. Bush is developing the technology to deal with the mess Clinton left.

Since bin Laden is on record as calling for the overthrow and death of Saddam Hussein, one would assume that the deal fell through. Bin Laden got his wish thanks to the US and now has the opportunity to establish an Islamic state in Iraq.

Source for this? And do you think that we should now invade Russia?

No, I'm saying the technology more than likely exists.

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a6_6.html

Since bin Laden is on record as calling for the overthrow and death of Saddam Hussein, one would assume that the deal fell through. Again, though, what benefit could Saddam hope to obtain by backing WMD attacks on Iraq?

Yeah, but this was prior to Gulf War 1 when Saddam was considered a US ally. The approach to Hussein came closer to a decade later. The 9/11 report also stated Saddam approached al-qaida 3 times when bin laden was in Sudan in 1996.

Have you seen the results for the I believe it is called Arrow anti-balistic missile system that they just recently successfully tested off of California to destroy an ICBM. Bush is developing the technology to deal with the mess Clinton left. The Arrow system is actually Israeli and was designed to counter limited ballistic missile threats from Syria and Iran. I'm not aware that it is effective against ICBMs, especially the latest generation that Russia and China use.

Besides, what happened to the Bush doctrine of pre-emption? You claimed just a few posts ago that the US invaded Iraq to prevent a non-existent threat. However, North Korea has demonstrated itself to be a real threat but you're willing to let that threat further develop. Strange logic...

Yeah, but this was prior to Gulf War 1 when Saddam was considered a US ally. WRONG! It was in 1990 after Iraq had invaded Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia.

Im just using LiberalisticSocieties (hope I spelled that correctly, appologies if I didn't) sources back at y'all.

Hmm. So the best we can say is that the range of opinion is somewhere between "576 years" (which I find to be a suspiciously exact figure for somewhere that's supposedly largely unexplored) and a couple of decades. Sorry, but I think I'll assume that the New Scientist is a more reliable source.

The oil industry has been caught out recently, telling lies about the state of their reserves to bolster their stock prices. Be very, very careful when oil companies make optimistic noises about how much there is left.

See Oil: running on empty? (http://money.msn.co.uk/investing/Insight/SpecialFeatures/ActiveInvestor/Runningonempty/default.asp), for example. A small quote:

Royal Dutch Shell was hit hard on Friday last week when it slashed the estimate of its proven reserves by 20 per cent to comply with tighter U.S. regulations. The seven per cent drop in the shares knocked £3bn off the market value of the firm...

For the first time, the globally supply situation is looking perilous. On current trends, global oil production will peak at around 80m-90m bpd in around 2015. This estimate, from the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, is pretty much in line with projections from OPEC and the International Energy Agency. With current demand at 80m bpd, and set to grow by at least 1.0m bpd a year, (Perhaps more if Chinese economic growth continues at current high rates) this will produce an energy crunch sometime in the next decade.

WRONG! It was in 1990 after Iraq had invaded Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia.

I did say prior to Gulf War 1 which didn't take place until 91....but I will concede on the still considered ally part. However, the ME was much rearranged following the war and the 90s.

No, I'm saying the technology more than likely exists.

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a6_6.html

Well... maybe. It's possible, I suppose, that the Soviet Union (and, in that case, almost certainly the USA too) have the capacity to build briefcase nukes. I am confident, though, that Saddam Huseein's Iraq did not.

Yeah, but this was prior to Gulf War 1 when Saddam was considered a US ally. The approach to Hussein came closer to a decade later. The 9/11 report also stated Saddam approached al-qaida 3 times when bin laden was in Sudan in 1996.

Even if bin laden and Saddam kissed and made up, given that Saddam was a secular dictator and that Osama wanted a Caliph-led theocracy, I don't think they would ever be bosom buddies. And again: what could Saddam hope to achieve from supporting attacks against Western interests? Given that the USA invaded him when he DIDN'T have anything to do with 9/11 or al-Qaeda, what would have happened if he HAD been behind it? Saddam's long-term interest depended on a gradual rapprochement with the West, despite his belligerent mutterings. He knew it, we knew it. Backing terrorists -- with the possible exception of encouraging suicide bombers in Israel, something of a traditional sport among Arab dictators -- was of no benefit to him.

Hmm. So the best we can say is that the range of opinion is somewhere between "576 years" (which I find to be a suspiciously exact figure for somewhere that's supposedly largely unexplored) and a couple of decades. Sorry, but I think I'll assume that the New Scientist is a more reliable source.

The oil industry has been caught out recently, telling lies about the state of their reserves to bolster their stock prices. Be very, very careful when oil companies make optimistic noises about how much there is left.

See Oil: running on empty? (http://money.msn.co.uk/investing/Insight/SpecialFeatures/ActiveInvestor/Runningonempty/default.asp), for example. A small quote:

Here is the article, it's from the University of Wisconsin.
http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/philligr.html

U.S. oil reserves (at current production levels) would only last only a decade if the U.S. was cut off from all other oil sources. Iraqi oil reserves (at their current use levels) would last about 526 years. Iraq has a reserve of about 112 billion barrels of oil. Now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power, the Iraqi oil industry is up for grabs. It will depend on a new Iraqi government to decide how it will distribute the oil. (sorry, got the number wrong.. it's 526 years)

Perhaps the decades number you keep mentioning is estimates if the US were "cut off from all other oil sources"?

Well... maybe. It's possible, I suppose, that the Soviet Union (and, in that case, almost certainly the USA too) have the capacity to build briefcase nukes. I am confident, though, that Saddam Huseein's Iraq did not.

The amount of former Soviet technology and material "floating" around out there is terrifying. However, I'm not suggesting that Saddam had them, I was suggesting that they are probably the greatest threat to the modern world. WMD that can be smuggled in under nation's noses. The amount of weapons grade Uranium they've already caught in the wrong hands is scary....because how much haven't we caught.

Backing terrorists -- with the possible exception of encouraging suicide bombers in Israel, something of a traditional sport among Arab dictators -- was of no benefit to him.

So what do you think Ansar al-Islam was?

Here is the article, it's from the University of Wisconsin.
http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/philligr.html

(sorry, got the number wrong.. it's 526 years)

Perhaps the decades number you keep mentioning is estimates if the US were "cut off from all other oil sources"?

I was speaking tonight with a friend of mine, who works in the oil industry (he's a geologist with a North Sea exploration company). I told him about the "576 years" figure, and he laughed loud and long. He didn't say that the oil itself wasn't there -- although he found the exactness of the figure highly suspect -- but he did say that the crucial factor is the ability to extract the oil at an economic rate. Even with the escalating price of oil, there is only so much that people can afford to pay for it.

The figure mentioned in the New Scientist article, and in the MS Money page, is for global use. It has nothing to do with the insular concerns of the USA. I find it highly unlikely that there would be serious financial and scientific concern about the availability of oil in the very near future if Iraq alone could supply the world for the next 500-odd years. Given that other (optimistic) sources stress the lack of exploration in Iraq, and given that the article you cite gives no source for its claim (and is trying to make the otherwise plausible case for an oil motive behind the invasion of Iraq), I'm afraid I can't give it much credence.

Examining the site you referred to more closely, I found this page:
http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/solberkr.html

Here's a quote:

The total amount of oil in the world is estimated at 4 trillion barrels. Of this total, experts estimate that approximately half is recoverable. These same experts estimate that 465 billion barrels of oil have already been consumed. The current rate of consumption around the world is 22 billion barrels per year.

If the current oil consumption rate is 22 billion barrels per year, then Iraq's supposed 112 billion barrels of oil (from the page you cite) would last about 5-6 years. Maybe this -- "5 to 6" -- is the root of the oddly precise "526" figure. In short, I think "526" is a typo.

The second article goes on:

At this rate, the world has about 45 years left to enjoy the luxuries that oil provides. Once world oil reserves becomes depleted, companies may look into the estimated 800 billion barrels which remain to be discovered, or are not recoverable with our current technology (Environmental Science, A Global Concern). Some prospective drilling sites where oil companies are researching are located in Alaska and the Caspian Basin. A large potential for liquid hydrocarbon resources, including shale oil and tar sands, exist mainly throughout North America.

Recovering usable oil from shale and tar sands is, using current methods, extremely, not to say prohibitively, expensive.

The amount of former Soviet technology and material "floating" around out there is terrifying. However, I'm not suggesting that Saddam had them, I was suggesting that they are probably the greatest threat to the modern world. WMD that can be smuggled in under nation's noses. The amount of weapons grade Uranium they've already caught in the wrong hands is scary....because how much haven't we caught.

Fair enough. It's true that we are, as per the old Chinese curse, living in interesting times. I would go so far as to say that we have to, as a matter of extreme self-interest, fight against the root causes of terrorism: poverty and oppression. I am delighted that Saddam Hussein's murderous regime has been overthrown. I think it should have happened decades ago, but better late than never.

However, the West is currently making all the same mistakes all over again, supporting vicious dictators because it happens to be perceived as politically and economically expedient: Uzbekistan, for example. The 20th century was, in the main, a history of a war between dictatorships and democracies. I'm on the side of the democracies. It's criminally stupid to turn a blind eye to the brutalisation and oppression of other nations just because it suits the short-term bottom lines of a handful of powerful Western corporations.

So what do you think Ansar al-Islam was?

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam):

[Ansar al-Islam] was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar is alleged to be the leader of Ansar al-Islam. He has lived in Norway, where he has refugee status, since 1991. On March 21, 2003 his arrest was ordered by Økokrim, a Norwegian law enforcement agency, to ensure he did not leave the country while accusations that he had threatened terrorist attacks were investigated.

Ansar al-Islam has been accused by the United States of providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda associates, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. According to the US, they had established a camp for the production of poisons, including ricin. The US has also claimed that Ansar al-Islam has links with Saddam Hussein, thus claiming a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. The claims were rejected by Krekar, and a presentation by Colin Powell to the UN on February 5, 2003 was met with widespread scepticism.

(my emphasis)

No good evidence of a connection to Saddam's regime -- it's not as if Powell's other presentations to the UN have been terribly convincing to date. As I said before, it was never in Saddam's interest to support fundamentalist Islamic movements, especially on his home turf. They hate him and his ilk as much as they hate the West.