“However, there were other factors that didn’t support the idea of removing Saddam in 1991…”

There was no intention to remove saddam. Regime change as a foreign policy is a Bush Jnr invention and has no legitimacy. All the coalition of the attack in 1991 intended to do was rescue Kuwaite from Iraqi aggression. That is all. The fact that he hasn’t complied with the little UN versai treaty means FA. I couldn’t care less if he had WMDs coming out his ears… he had plenty in the 80s and the only victims were his own people. If they don’t want to rise up and take him out why should anyone else? He is not the only a$$hole with WMDs and a habit of screwing his own.
After the war the US and others have implemented a vendetta… much like that inflicted on Milosovich and Castro and the cuban people. Talk about childish. Squeese them till they burst. Well, I say lucky for us Saddam didn’t have WMDs or US troops might have had real problems.

“Or using the oil as leverage against the United States perhaps, I don’t know. Sure, the whole thing could appear shady to anyone.”

But if it isn’t about oil how could they do that?

Of course it is about oil.

“If the oil system isn’t protected/maintained/repaired, and needs to be replaced later because it was ignored or attacked, it will cost more money. Iraq isn’t going to have a huge bankbook to start off with. “

The oil is safe. Any bank in the world will drool at the opportunity to offer them loans to get it out of the ground. The only problem will be tempering the greed so that you don’t drill more than you need so that the price stays reasonably high so you make good money on what you sell.

“It might not help the US, but it would provide a more equitable situation.”

If the US cared about an equitable situation then it would genuinely discuss things in the UN and leave its veto and bribes and threats and excess baggage at the door. The sad truth is that while some (little countries that don’t know what power is and therefore really do go to discuss things) might go with good intentions they are rare and easily corrupted. All of the important nations that go are interested in stating their beliefs and then getting their way.

“Stating we were going after WMDs was legal under the original resolution…it was quite a bit after 30 days.”

I am impressed at how well your inspection teams were.

“Ergo, we did have a UN mandate, even if people didn’t like the argument or thought we were twisting the system. I personally am all for a democratic process, even if the US Government is not.”

They say that power corrupts and that total power corrupts totally. I think it is more of a case of we have lots of weapons and money and power… if we can’t do what we want with all this what is the point in having it?… obviously those without will disagree strongly.

“In a society that embraces “what have you done for me lately”, what have they done for us lately?”

Well in an age when most former Soviet allies are still armed with predouble digit SAM systems there is really only one source that got you intimately knowledgable on these systems.

“True there. But you have to admit that had the US come in on the side of the Palestinians in 1947 things may have been a little different regarding our relationship with a number of nations over there.”

I think there is room in the region for both sides. I think if US support wasn’t there for the last 30 years then the Israelis would have either had to be much more aggressive, or much more flexible in the negotiations. At the end of the day, being realistic, if the US had supported the Palestinians the Soviets probably would have helped the Israelis.

“I can’t find fault with that logic. If we regarded oil as some pointless sticky substance we’d have a whole different outlook on the Middle East.”

The region would be a lot poorer too.

“How does the war keep prices low? “

The price is dictated by the flow. If a small country reduces its exports of the stuff then the price might fluctuate a little. If a large country like Iraq decides to greatly reduce its exports then this has a huge effect on the price. (remember at the time Venesuala stopped pumping too due to strikes). At a time of recession after the 11/9 attacks and that can be serious. The solution is to increase the amount of oil that is being pumped. The oil producers might be pursuaded to increase a little, but to increase a lot will drop the price so they will get less for what they sell. Oil isn’t like computers… if you pumped too much just store it in barrels. By invading Iraq even if the situation dicatated the US had to leave within 3 weeks (ie you kill Saddam, but are losing 10 soldiers a day) then you could leave safe in the knowledge that any government that takes power has to get the oil industry up and pumping as soon as possible to get the place rebuilt and healthy again. Remaining there and having your own companies pumping it themselves is the icing on the cake… double dipping at the well so to speak.

“Interesting theory-fertile grounds for terrorism far from our shores make for a much safer United States.”

Basically lawless fertile grounds for terrorism in Afghanistan is how 11/9 was planned wasn’t it?

“His neighbors-now you’re really on to something, give it some thought and it’ll hit you rather quickly “

It hasn’t hit me yet… can you give me a hint… or was all this a plan to get US bases close to Syria, and Iran?

“Ah, but if the UN ignores its own rules, it’s just as irrelevant as if the US ignores them…”

But it makes the rules and rules can be read anyway you like. For example if the US actually liked the Saddam regime I am sure that the requirements of getting rid of WMDs would be forgotten and nothign more would be said. Lets face it most countries in the region probably have WMDs up the ying yang anyway. Of all the countries in the world it is a little hipocritical of the US to get all precious about it anyway. They not only have an abundance of these things, but more importantly they have the means and capability to actually use them if they wanted.