I think the Iraqi's, should they see the US government as their liberators, would give us first crack at any contracts to be had for oil anyway...<br><br>Wouldn't you think we would have earned that right, for the work and the eventual money to rebuild Iraq, that we're about to put in?<br><br>I HIGHLY doubt the U.S. is simply going to seize the assets of a nation that is vulnerable and decimated by military action. <br><br>If THAT happens, then I'll have to consider yours and all others' viewpoint that there was an underlying, alterior motive here. But, until then, the oil theory doesn't hold any water with me...<br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>

i was quite pleased with some of the programs that clinton pushed through and often voiced my pleasure when others were singing a different tune. there were times when i was not so pleased under clinton -- e.g., welfare reform, the monica ordeal, etc. i have found little to be pleased with over the past few years and i don't see much to cheer about for the next year and a half...the elections can't come soon enough (imho).<br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>

Besides, did it say anywhere in those snippets about 'taking over' the oil fields?<br><br>I specifically saw items about contracts to 'rebuild' the oil fields, and the other example was a contract to deal with the fires & damage caused by the first Gulf War...<br><br>You're quoting from sources that drew their own CONCLUSIONS about facts that were quoted, not actual evidence...<br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>

we've "earned that right" if that's how you want to perceive this issue. me, i perceive that "right" to mean that oil is more important that you're willing to admit. i thought our goal was to ensure that terrorism is squelched. if we reach that objective, shouldn't we be able to say, "whew! the world is a safer place" and leave it at that? now, suddenly our efforts need to be rewarded by the iraqi people? strings attached when it used to be about our safety???<br><br>i think that the only solution is to follow the advice of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, a think tank created by the former secretary of state to the first President George Bush when they warned the current administration not to show favoritism for American firms in rebuilding Iraq's oil industry. <br><br>"There should be a level playing field for all international players to participate in future repair, development and exploration efforts," the report said. "A heavy-handed American approach will only convince them (the Iraqis) . . . and the rest of the world that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament, reasons."<br><br>these aren't my words...this is the think tank organization created by a senior advisor to daddy bush saying that we still have to convince the world that we were in it only for the disarmament of saddam (you seem to suggest that we should get the spoils as well and that's what i am saying could be very wrong with our approach). we are being watched very closely by the world and i hope we tread carefully. of course the iraqi people will have a say, but i tend to think they will be mere puppets for many years...just as they are in afghanistan right now -- hardly recognized by much of the country but installed largely by the united states. we'll see.<br><br><br>and people (many of you)...when i say dubya failed at dimplomacy...i am not talking about his diplomacy with saddam (although that didn't work, but i can blame saddam more than dubya on that one), i am talking about dubya's inability to get support from the world like he did in afghanistan or like his father had in the gulf war. we've decided to overstep our bounds here and go it alone (or, with limited support from some allies). most polls indicated that people here wanted to wait for support of the UN, but we didn't wait...i have no doubt that waiting another year with increased inspections would have yielded more support -- particularly if the rumors of the WMD were true and were discovered -- that smoking gun would have done it and would have brought much of the world aboard. this wasn't handled well.<br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>

to mean that oil is more important that you're willing to admit.<br><br>Oil is important.<br><br>But the US only gets 7% from Iraq.<br>Which the US can easily order 1% more from 7 of the other 26 oil producing countries.<br><br>Plus<br>OPEC controls the flow of oil from the middle east - so realy the oil angle that everyone likes to harp on was realy a Moot point from the very begining.<br><br>

"most polls indicated that people here wanted to wait for support of the UN"<br><br>I really hate to nitpick but that's not what I'm reading in the polls-<br><br>In an ABC/Washington Post poll<br><br>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Living/iraq_war_poll030318.html<br><br>Seventy-two percent say the United States has done enough to try to win international backing ? a number that has grown steadily over the months, even as diplomacy flailed.<br><br>66 percent support Bush's decision to abandon a Security Council vote<br><br>In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll<br><br>http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/18/sprj.irq.bush.poll/<br><br>And 68 percent said they thought the United States did all it could to resolve the crisis through diplomacy -- despite the failure to win another U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq.<br><br>In a MSNBC/Wall Street Journal Poll<br><br>http://www.msnbc.com/news/886732.asp<br><br>Asked if the United States should take more time to try to resolve the conflict diplomatically, 61 percent favored military action now. Thirty-three percent favored more diplomacy.<br><br>CBS News<br><br>http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030317-092031-9772r<br><br>75 percent said that giving Iraq more time to disarm would probably just delay the inevitable military conflict rather than secure a peaceful outcome.<br><br>

(you seem to suggest that we should get the spoils as well and that's what i am saying could be very wrong with our approach)<br><br>Hey, I'm not running this war- all I'm saying is that if the Iraqi people- whom we will be giving control of their own resources to- wish to grant the United States a lucrative oil contract, then who is the U.S. to turn it down? <br><br>However, I don't think we'll be standing there after the war with our hands out like some hotel baggage handler, if that's what you mean...I apologize if I implied that's what I thought part of our motivation for this war was..<br><br>We live in a capitalist society, and it's a fact of life that the government grants contracts to privately-held businesses to manfacture goods or provide services for said administration. This goes for plane & tank parts, computers in federal buildings, you name it...<br><br>I think opposition to the war effort are taking these details and exploiting them as if they've never occured before...<br><br>The U.S. is not going into this operation with blinders on and no plan to rebuild Iraq when it is finished...quite the contrary. I think what the U.S. is doing is simply covering all angles. Take a look at Japan and tell me if they would be where they are today if we hadn't rebuilt them after WW2 (granted after we dropped an A-bomb on them)...<br><br>How bad would we have looked if we just plowed through Iraq, leaving massive destruction in our wake, and then just left the people of that country high and dry, with no rebuilding plan or funds to do so?<br><br>I think that's what often separates our 'invasions' from other so-called 'aggressors'. I really doubt Hitler, if we hadn't stopped him, was going to give back France in the end, rebuild the whole country, and say "Whoops, my bad."...<br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>there were times when i was not so pleased under clinton -- e.g., welfare reform, the monica ordeal, etc.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I've never met a teacher or government employee yet that wasn't on the last feather of the tip of the left wing so no surprise there. Sorry Sean I do like ya and a few of my friends are state employees in our VERY liberal state of Massachusetts and I would and do say the same thing to them.<br><br>

hey, i don't try and hide it...clinton was a bit too conservative for my tastes. <br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>

those look like polls from today and yesterday...people change once the inevitable is upon us. those same polls sang a different tune not too long ago. in fact, there was this from one of your links:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The poll, however, also pointed to some doubt among the American public about the merits of going to war. Of the 66 percent who said they approve of Bush's decision, 21 percent said they were not sure it was the right thing to do, but they supported the president regardless.<p><hr></blockquote><p>that 21% (or more or less) could have easily been on the other side of the fence and are merely jumping to be supportive now that it's going to happen. i guess the bottom line is how we are perceived internationally when this is all said and done with. a lot of americans in your links seemed to fear increased terrorism as a result of this impending war. that's unfortunate that we now have to live in that fear.<br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>