http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I'm quite sure you're familiar with this letter. I'm also sure you know (or can at least find out) how many are either currently serving in this admin or have served. And also, try to find out how many served in the Reagan admin also (hint, there's more than just Rumsfeld).

As for Syria I haven't seen anything from the UN about this. And since you tend to believe in the importance of UN Resolutions (and as an aside I think the UN is a waste of time as it's currently organized) which says that Saddaam's WMD's were moved there (and please don't say the Russians moved them).

As for 1441. General Powell did lay out many specific allegations concerning Iraq's WMD's that weren't accounted for. I think he made a good case. But if you contend that it's justified because of the violations of the cease fire and other violations, why did the US dismiss Iraq's response out of hand?

One question before I go. What effect would Iraq/Iran switching their oil trading currencies from the dollar to the euro have on the US? And if true as had been rumored Iraq was threatening to do so just prior to the war and Iran is threatening to do it very shortly.

Well if the UN doesn't say it then it is not happening, right?

So there isn't any murder going on in Darfur and there wasn't anything going on in Rwanda either.

There was no Serbian/Croat murdering going on either.

UN didn't recognize that, so it didn't happen.

Just because people served in both administrations doesn't mean that they are neo-cons.

haha the Russians did help them remove them. All is laid out in the Bill Gertz book.

Iraq's response was obfuscation.

Iraq hasn't switched to euros.

but say all the oil exporting countries that curently use the dollar switch to euros (I think that is what you mean), then that would primarily mean that the US would have to have more eruo reserves in the central bank.

But that assumes that it would be an advantage to the oil exporting countries to making that change.

When you look at ALL of the economic indicators I think that even a confirmed Marxist would see that the USA is far stronger than the EU. ANd remember, the USA isn't consider expanding and adding 80 million turks, or another 45 million eastern europeans which are all poor countries by any western standard.

Why did we invade Iraq?

Paul Wolfowitz



Richard Perle



Dov Zakheim

Wow, you are really good at posting pictures.


Your mommy must be proud.

Why did we enter this War?

It is called "lobbying."

You have to bring LOTS of money.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

This piece gives in great detail many of the same views I also hold.

To address jimmyjude's response,

I agree totally that the UN has completely botched both Darfur and Rwanda. I've said before I think the UN is a very weak organization right now.

Serbia was a NATO campaign with limited UN support.

"Just because people served in both administrations doesn't mean that they are neo-cons."

I'd hoped you are familiar enough with the history of the neoconservative movement to understand that the movement arose in great part out of the "Reagan Democrats" as much as it did the Straussian teachings. A key tenet of that thinking was the need for a strong military that was not afraid to be used to impose it's will. It was during this period that saw the rise of prominence of the Bill Kristol's, Bill Buckley's, Norm Podheretz's, etc. This period also found an outlet for the views of Paul Wolfewitz, Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams within the administration.

"haha the Russians did help them remove them. All is laid out in the Bill Gertz book."

And for a different perspective try reading Sy Hersh or even Scott Ritter. It's just a matter of point of view as to whether or not you believe that.

"Iraq's response was obfuscation."

Possibly. But I tend to think that the US would have been much better to make the case and would have been able to build a much stronger coalition (similar to the first Gulf War) had the US taken Iraq's response and refuted it point by point. Unfortunately we didn't and as a result it gave the appearance that the US wanted to go to war.

"Iraq hasn't switched to euros."

Nov. 2000. referenced in link above.

"but say all the oil exporting countries that curently use the dollar switch to euros (I think that is what you mean), then that would primarily mean that the US would have to have more eruo reserves in the central bank.

But that assumes that it would be an advantage to the oil exporting countries to making that change."

Since the euro is currently stronger than the dollar the effect on gas prices, etc. will most certainly benefit oil exporting countries. Gas prices are currently close to 2.50 in most areas. Imagine the political fallout in trying to defend 3.00 a gal gas. Couple that with increases in natural gas, heating oil, etc. and you a serious effect on the economy.

UN is weak and so?

Should we hand over our Military and give them our Tax dollars?

The problems created in Africa, in the Middle East, in Europe and America are for the most part a matter of "INTELLIGENT DESIGN."

There are BIG GAINS to be made in by some in the Banking industry and their affiliates, by engineering these problems and then acting as the saviour.

Why would a switch to euros increase the price of gas here.

Say right now that the exchange rate is 2/1 euros/dollars. And a barrell of oil costs 60 dollars. Then it would cost 120 euros for a barrelll of gas.

The exchange rate is simply to price of money.

Right now it costs about $1.25 US to buy 1 euro. Say that $60 US barrell of oil were to be priced at 60 euro/barrell, then the cost in US dollars would be $75. It's either that or have OPEC trade oil at 48 euro/barrell. In that case then right now it's even. But as the value of the euro increases relative to the dollar then it's inevitable that the conversion costs will be either eaten by the oil companies as a cost of business or will be passed to the consumer.

First. OPEC HAS NOT switched to the euro. So any of the comparison you are making are moot.

If oil was the goal then the Bush administration could have found a way to it in a much more efficient fashion. I am not doubting that oil politics played a big role in this current war. Just pointing out that it is facile to say ALL that it was about.

Look, it is difficult to explain to you why whether the OPEC uses dollar, rupees, wan, or euros don't matter really. Maybe you can look at wikipedia for a primer on the exchange rate.

The cost of business is ALWAYS passed onto the consumer. "it is not from the good nature of the butcher, baker, or brewer" that the dinner is on our table. It is from their own enlightened seflinterst that those people produce the things we want and need.