World War III: Over Oil? ***Debate***

[The Source]

World War III: Over Oil/Imports/Exports/Etc??? ***Debate***

Before we discuss this subject, I must ask everyone to keep your responses respectable. I opened up this thread, so we can debate about its possibility. If you have anything offensive to say, please reframe from posting. Thank you...

 

Several hours ago, I read a thread about our oil crisis. Yes, I call it a crisis. As some of you know, or you are aware, we have a high demand for oil, but we are not producing enough of it. As a result of limited supply, the price of oil is on a rappid rise.

 

On top of the oil problem, the US is hitting another record deficit by years end. At the moment, we owe $800 billion in funds to other countries.

 

On top of the deficit problem, the number of US owned companies in the US is rappidly declining. According to some reports, the US has to establish enough companies in our own country to regain 70% of our own market.

 

On top of our home problem, we are not establishing enough US runned companies in foreign countries. These US runned companies that reside in foreign countries helped us recover from deficits in previous years.

 

On top of all the above, the US is also in an educational decline. According to census reports done by the Department of Education, the US is also reppidly lossing ground in the subjects of English and Math. These two subjects are essential to growth and development in technology and science.

 

At the moment, we are fighting a war in Iraq and Afganistan (sp?). Upon the horizon, regarless about what our US President is saying, we are at the edge of war with Iran.

 

Within the mix of it all, we are slowly loosing ground with Asian countries. Instead of foreigners remaining here after obtaining an education, they are obtaining their degree and returning home. This is due to the efficiantcy of the internet.

 

Does any one believe that World War III is inevidible if the US stays this course?

[stingerhs]

well, i'm already of the opinion that the world is in rapid decline, and its not just the US that concerns me. the Asian economy isn't performing near as well as it has in the past. althought its being assisted with the somewhat growing Chinese Economy, the rest of the countries are declining over the long term.

 

Russia was once a very powerful country, and in some ways, it still is. however, with the Russian economy still in shambles since the Soviet collapse combined with Putin as President, i'd be a bit more concerned with Russia than the US.

 

those are really my biggest concerns with the world, if you ask me. although i could discuss things such as Europe's economy since WWII, i don't particularly have the time to do so with finals coming up in a couple weeks.

 

as for my final opinion: the world is edging towards war, not just the US. in some ways, the US is indeed the catalyst. however, in others, it is merely reacting to the rest of the world.

[HerbieZ]

Well as long as no one else bombs our chippy again. Mmmheh well i think it's increasingly likely that America will invade Iran especially after the recent news article of the Iranian military leader saying something about god approving of their army. But to be honest i think we british need to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan if only to make the American presence less threatening and reduce the potential threats to both military forces.

 

Either way this ends, my personal view is that George Bush is equal to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. No military force owned by any country should be allowed to hop from country to country in the name of "Liberation" just because they have the nessasary force. It's just bullying on a monumental scale.

[Prime]

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. Play nice!

[The Source]

I did not even think about the state of other countires, and the possibilities that could occur outside the United States. I keep forgeting about the conditions of China, Russia, and Korea.

 

If the British walked away from Iraq, I believe that the American public would understand. George Bush may be our president, but he does have a mess of people to answer to. Eventually, his policies will catch up on him. He has two more years in office after 2006. After Bush leaves office, the next admidistration will try to make sense of what he started. When it comes to Afghanistan, I believe that is another story in itself. Fighting terrorism is important for all countries.

 

The war on Iraq is an intresting conundrum. I think we could have had our war with Sadam, but we could have sold it better to the public and other countries. Sadam's biography is filled with parinoia, power control, and chaos. Sadam structured his government based upon Starlin. During his conquring admidistration of Iraq, Sadam use to hold public meetings, and he would kill people who disagreed with his policies. He use to fill large meeting halls, and hold assemblies to talk about laws and governing. In front of everyone, he would weed out his oposition and kill them. After killing several officials, the other officials fell into line. He used the tactic of, "Someone has betrayed the Iraqi government. Does anyone know who the traitor is?" This would force Iraqis to turn in each other, for they feared their own death. Sadam came into power by controling the Iraq army. He did not get into office by elections. He gained control over Iraq, and then killed off the former leaders. He use to gass his people to see its different effects. There are other graphical examples, but I don't think they are appropriate. One of his sons use to kill kids. I can not remember which son, but he use to run a soccer team. If a kid would not perform well, he would torture him to death. This was his way of motivating the kids to play well.

 

If the Gulf War removed Sadam from power, we will not be having complications about the current state of Iraq. The U.N. and Nato would have forces in the area constantly. Since Bush is not a great public speaker, and he came into office at a 50% split, this create a cloud over his policies.

 

2000/01- Bush won by a 50% margin, and everyone was confussed in the US.

2004/05- Bush won by a large margin, for his approach with the Afghanistan problem.(Sept. 11th.)

[Darth InSidious]

World War Three will be over water, not oil, IMO.

[Tysyacha]

I predict that World War III will not be over water or oil alone, but religious

fanaticism and control of all of Earth's natural resources. As we all know,

they are becoming scarcer every day, and no one nation will ever be

allowed to use them all up. Not even America, superpower though it is.

 

What about the "religious fanaticism" part? As far as I'm concerned, within

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at least, there are two huge "factions" apiece:

 

Zionists vs. Mainstream/Moderate Jews

Fundamentalists vs. Mainstream/Moderate Christians

Radical Insurgents vs. Mainstream/Moderate Muslims

 

Mix and match these resources, faiths, and nations, and you've got yourself a war.

[The Source]

It is like everything is in a boiling pot of water. If they don't keep stiring, the water will overflow.

 

I wonder if all these factors are like walking on a thin line. Gr...

 

As for the religious wars, they have existed through out history. Christianity vs, Muslems, etc... I can see that every new Religious war is worse than the last one.

 

This reminds me of the 'Cold War'. I wonder if we are in something similar. Otherwords, we are in a 'Biological War'. The race to prevent 'Biological' Weapons from being made. Or- Nuclear.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Oil isn't that scarse. I'm not saying we shouldn't increase fuel efficiency and perhaps stop using oil-based fuels, but it's not actually that hard to find.

 

Unfortunately though, most people don't care about that, and as long as they can make money, they'll do whatever it takes to get it.

 

Now for the ironic part: if something like this leads to a large war (that doesn't rely on the use of nuclear weapons), the global economy would probably be all set for another 50 or 60 years.

 

1. War

2. Production

3. ????

4. Profit.

 

[CountVerilucus]

I heard that Iran is signing up volunteer "martyrs" (and you all know what they mean by that) to attack US-British targets around the world in the event of a US-British strike on Iran-fun fact. I dont know how a war will solve the problem for oil at all. We are in a good position to go to war with Iran strategically I think. If we do go to war with Iran we have a good chance of being backed by the British and Israelis. Both have pretty competent militaries. For the Israelis get threatened by all the countries around them all the time. On top of that we have Iraq and Afganistan, two stagging points for a military strike on Iran, not to mention deploying warships in the Persian gulf which of course could attack Iranian land targets. That means a war on two fronts for them.

 

But I don't see how this will dig us out of our hole. The war will only drain our funds even more. Though it will eliminate another power in the "Axis of Evil" atleast there is a possitive to the situation there. Iraq is gone, Iran might be next, then we just have North Korea left.

 

And about oil, why dont we take Iraq's oil. Come on now, where are the spoils of war? Take it, all of it, maybe leave some for the people of Iraq. Who will stop the US? We liberated their nation, disposed of their despot, and we are helping them establish a democracy. Paid in the blood of our soldiers. There is nothing wrong with taking a bunch of their oil. The way I see it, its either we get oil or they get oil. The choice is simple, I choose us...

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I heard that Iran is signing up volunteer "martyrs" (and you all know what they mean by that) to attack US-British targets around the world in the event of a US-British strike on Iran-fun fact.

 

{snip}

 

And about oil, why dont we take Iraq's oil. Take it, all of it, maybe leave some for the people of Iraq. Who will stop the US? The way I see it, its either we get oil or they get oil. The choice is simple, I choose us...

Yeah, I heard about that first part too, they announced it. As for the last part you mentioned, there are too many douchebags in the world who will cry out and start protesting about how that it'd be proof we went to Iraq for their oil (as if you need proof of something in the court of public opinion). It'd be a PR nightmare for whoever makes that call and there's no one in the position to make that decision with the balls to make it.

[CountVerilucus]

I would sacrifice our public relations to stabilize our economy. As for the protest, nothing that some tear gas and brutal law enforcement can't solve. But you can't do that unless it's a riot, people have the right to assembly.

 

Where is Emperor Palpatine and his radical totalitarian government when you need it?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I would sacrifice our public relations to stabilize our economy. As for the protest, nothing that some tear gas and brutal law enforcement can't solve. But you can't do that unless it's a riot, people have the right to assembly.

I agree with you on some parts (I go to school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where there are a lot of colleges full of uppity students, so I'm not too keen on the protests, especially if they make me late). But if you'd make that decision, I'd vote for you

[Jae Onasi]

It is probably the understatement of the millenium to say this is an extraordinarily complex topic.

 

Forgive me if this is a bit non sequiter--my favorite cat had to have emergency surgery today and I'm just fried.

 

There are multiple things that could combine to contribute to WWIII, including (but not limited to) a financial crisis, a religious crisis, an ideological crisis, a political crisis, a food crisis, and so on. It is unlikely just one of these crises alone could cause a war, but several of them in combination could trigger a major conflict.

 

I think in the US that would be a financial crisis butting up against a political crisis, and in the rest of the world it would be a financial crisis butting up against a religious/ideological crisis.

 

The current oil crisis could certainly contribute to a financial crisis, not only in the US but in the rest of the world.

 

The shortage is entirely artificial.

 

There's plenty of oil still in the ground (though that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on finding alternative fuel sources). If OPEC decided to pump more oil, the prices would drop dramatically. However, speculators are taking advantage of the natural disasters and the very ephemeral (at least, currently) threat of an Iran conflict driving up the price of oil. I find it hard to believe that companies like Exxon can make quarterly profits in the billions without market manipulation being involved. I have no problem whatsoever with companies making healthy profits. However, if they do so by bleeding my pocketbook dry and taking food off my children's table, then I have a huge problem with it. So while oil companies take obscene advantage of the current oil prices, the rest of us pay higher gas prices, and the prices of goods go up because it costs more to transport them to the various places around the country. Whether this causes a financial crisis of out-of-control inflation in the near future remains to be seen. The economy is currently improving in spite of the gas and oil costs, but it will not continue to stay that way if they skyrocket. At some point the oil companies are going to be forced to recognize that they need to find a balance between their greed and their effects on the economy. If the price of gas is so high that no one can afford to use it and inflation is so out of control that goods are too expensive for people to afford, then they're going to start losing dollars fast.

 

This wouldn't have an effect on just the US. The adage that 'when the US coughs, the rest of the world catches cold' is very applicable. We have a huge trade deficit with China and other countries. Anything that affects Americans' ability to purchase products is going to affect not only the US, but any countries the US buys from. It is not inconceivable that a serious recession or depression in the US could lead to other countries experiencing a depression as a result. If there are a lot of countries experiencing serious financial problems, they're going to be more predisposed to unrest.

 

We still are dealing with the ideological differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism to this day. While I have a healthy respect for Putin and Russia simply because they command an incredible amount of natural resources and he is attempting to consolidate power in his office, I am more concerned about the 'Sleeping Giant' China. China has a huge human resource to go with their significant natural resources, and their economy, if given just a little more leeway and just a little less top-down control, is going to explode, probably within the next 10 years and certainly in the next 25. Where they go with this vis-a-vis conducting more capitalistic business in a communist society will be very intersting. My sense of the ideological crisis of capitalism vs. communism is that it's signficantly reduced compared to what it was about 15 years ago. I took History of the Soviet Union in '88, and pretty much everything I learned about Soviet/Russia then ideologically is now blown completely out of the water.

 

If ideological difference appear to be decreasing to a degree, religious differences are increasing tremendously, and not just in the Middle East (though that's the most obvious) but all over the world--France, Indonesia, and other countries. I am well aware that Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace (and the religious tenets of Islam would be a thread all on its own). However, I have not seen those countries who could have a major moderating influence (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey) really making a wholesale effort to curb terrorism or radicalism. They say they are against that, but I've not seen any coordinated, consistent efforts in a serious effort to stop the radicals. Radical Christians and Zionists represent a much smaller number of radicals. I don't think they should be ignored, but they don't have the same numbers and power as does radical Islam.

 

There is a political crisis in the UN (which has degenerated into a corrupt, ineffectual party) and things are still very unsettled in the EU. The US has its share of interesting politics, and I don't doubt the landscape will change rather dramatically once Bush's term is up, particularly if a Dem wins the White house and the Dems regain control of the Senate. It will be especially interesting if one party is in the White house and the opposing party controls the Senate.

 

Iraq--knowing what I know now, I think we shouldn't have gone in, but now that we're there, we need to finish the job. The only thing that really bothers me tremendously is that the news channels almost never show all the good things we're going over there. I guess building schools, hospitals, and sewer systems is not as sexy as things blowing up.

Comparing Bush with Saddam (and sons Uday and Qusay) and bin Ladin is perhaps a little too harsh. Quite frankly, I'm not sorry to see Uday Hussein gone, especially with his proclivities for young girls.

Bush is neither a ruthless dictator nor a strategist in terrorism. He may have some innocent blood on his hands, but he's hardly in the class of someone who would gas his own people with nerve agents or plan to intentionally take out thousands of innocent people by flying planes into buildings. While none of my New York relatives thankfully were in the Twin towers when they went down, I will not forget the frantic feeling I had not knowing how they were or if they were alive because the phone lines were out for several days.

 

I view Iran as about as equally dangerous as North Korea--both are being run by radicals (either Muslim or Communist) who have access to nuclear power and thus bear close watching. I think the world community would be more inclined to do something about Iran than N. Korea simply because Iran is bigger and because it's in the Middle East where Oil Is King. I view the Iranian president Ahmadinejad as more shrewd and intelligent than the N. Korean leaders, and that makes him slightly more dangerous. That being said, I would not be surprised if Iran pushes it to the very edge and then backs off at the last minute.

 

I think to get world war 3 started, you'd have to have a combination of a couple of crises combined with a very charismatic leader (megalomania optional). I don't think we have that at this particular moment. That doesn't mean it couldn't change dramatically tomorrow, but at the moment I don't know if something like that is going to happen with any immediacy.

 

I may have more thoughts on that later when more of my brain is in a functional state.

[CountVerilucus]

very interesting, and like you said about us building schools, hospitals, sewer systems, handing out candy, kissing babies...why not reward ourselves with some of their oil. And yes, China is capable of many things especially with their man power. I lived in Hong Kong for two years when I was a kid, there's a lot of damn Chinese people im tellin ya. Anyways I'm conservative myself, but do you think things will get better if the democrats come to power?

[Jae Onasi]

very interesting, and like you said about us building schools, hospitals, sewer systems, handing out candy, kissing babies...why not reward ourselves with some of their oil. And yes, China is capable of many things especially with their man power. I lived in Hong Kong for two years when I was a kid, there's a lot of damn Chinese people im tellin ya. Anyways I'm conservative myself, but do you think things will get better if the democrats come to power?

 

Actually, I think we should _buy_ their oil so that their economy can start to stabilize. Once they stabilize, we can get out of there.

 

I didn't say things would get _better_ if Dems come to power, just interesting. I'm very conservative on some issues and very liberal on some others, and generally centrist on most things. I have no doubt the next Presidential election is going to be fascinating.

[Sabretooth]

Ookay, another poilitcodebatiolcokupionospamio thread. Nice.

 

So, here are my two cents -

 

America (No flames, please)

 

Looking at the way America "conquered' Iraq, it would be difficult to say that it will be unsuccessful at any other country, atleast one in the middle-east.

 

Iran's nuclear strong-willedness is, as expected, drawing more than US attention. It wouldn't be long before US turns to Iran, and will find a flaw in the system. The most easy ways would be if the Iranian President goes too far and gets ready to declare war, in defense, and secondly, if the American plethora of intelligence beureaus find a slightest connection between Iran politics and terrorism. The US will charge in and subjugate Iran.

 

The Palestine/Israel crisis will not go unnoticed. After gaining a foothold in Iran and Iraq, I believe the US will turn to the Holy Land and sieze it, declaring a "peace" between the warring cultures.

 

Why would America do this? Because they need a lookout in Asia, which is their greatest threat. Asia is home to several rising powers, which could one day rival the might of America and sap the resources which they want. By establishing an America in the middle-east, America gets oil, wealth and resources, while having a lookout into Asian affairs.

 

9/11 opened the American eyes to what could happen in terrorism. If a nuclear weapon fell into terrorist hands, there was no telling what might happen. America therefore, ties a leash on Iran, North Korea and other nuke-making countries. What America is doing is definitely not wrong. But the question is, is it justifiably right?

 

Saddam went to court, and I agree that he was, a "criminal". But then, the war was two-sided. Did Bush not enter Iraq, steal it's oil, ruin Hussein's government, lose invaluable artifacts and in the end, establish anarchy? Why should Bush not be held at court? Is he entirely innocent of the Iraqi blood that was lost? The blood of the valiant protectors of their motherland, intermingled with the blood of countless innocents and terrorists.

 

World War III

The world is infinitely more stable than it was in the early and mid 20th Century. Unless somthing truly major happens, it is unlikely that multiple countries will team together to battle each other.

 

The war will obviously be, a fight against "terrorism", but is that what it truly is? Is it a coincidence that the Middle-East, hub of terrorism, is a warehouse of oil and resources? There is no coincidence. In fact, It was inevitable. When the resources run out, countries will struggle to sap the last drop of oil, even if it means declaring war. It is unfortunate to see that such a moment has come this early, when humans have learned to make mutual friendships and co-operations.

 

I can't think more right now, but I'll be back when I have more to add. Please, no hard feelings now and sorry, if it hurt thy nation.

[Jeremia Skywalk]

Hmm i have some thoughts about this of course. Firstly people already know how to produce gas for cars without oil, its only not that efficient and needed. Secondly i am pretty interested in history and i find a lot of things and what i have understood is that, the human race has very rearly had good periods when most of population was happy, middle ages was the worst, more recent history aint better, wars are everywhere... I am not sure about the possibility of war, but i am quite sure that we are at the edge of a break- for the worse or better- i have not a smallest idea, but the existing system is realy getting all old and rusty. Of course changes wont take place in months or even years but i think most of us will live to see them. My two cents.

[stingerhs]

The Palestine/Israel crisis will not go unnoticed. After gaining a foothold in Iran and Iraq, I believe the US will turn to the Holy Land and sieze it, declaring a "peace" between the warring cultures.

i highly doubt that the US would intervene in the crisis outside of what it has already done which is to act as a diplomatic mediator in the crisis. if worse comes to worse, Isreal can handle its own problems militarily if the situation begins to spiral completely out of control.

 

and i highly doubt that the US would invade one of its closest allies in the Middle East. the political reprocussions would be far too massive for even the US to handle. not to mention the losses incurred by American forces by invading one of the strongest, if not the strongest, military in the Middle East would cause one heck of a backlash back in the American Homeland.

this? Because they need a lookout in Asia, which is their greatest threat. Asia is home to several rising powers, which could one day rival the might of America and sap the resources which they want. By establishing an America in the middle-east, America gets oil, wealth and resources, while having a lookout into Asian affairs.

ahh, here we go again with the assumptions that all Americans are a bunch of greedy bastards looking to conquer the world.

9/11 opened the American eyes to what could happen in terrorism. If a nuclear weapon fell into terrorist hands, there was no telling what might happen. America therefore, ties a leash on Iran, North Korea and other nuke-making countries. What America is doing is definitely not wrong. But the question is, is it justifiably right?

ok, this is where i'm not fully understanding you. in the previous statement, you just made America out to be a bunch of greedy bastards looking to secure nothing but oil and wealth. now that you taken a look into the terrorism aspect, you can't call what America is doing as "wrong".

 

the point is that perhaps you've just answered your own question. the idea of going abroad to weed out terrorism in the name of security isn't wrong, as you just stated. however, if a line is crossed between defending the country from terrorism and looking to secure the spoils of war then not even i can personally justify what happens.

Saddam went to court, and I agree that he was, a "criminal". But then, the war was two-sided. Did Bush not enter Iraq, steal it's oil, ruin Hussein's government, lose invaluable artifacts and in the end, establish anarchy? Why should Bush not be held at court? Is he entirely innocent of the Iraqi blood that was lost? The blood of the valiant protectors of their motherland, intermingled with the blood of countless innocents and terrorists.

i think the debate as to who is responsible for the horrendous mishandling of the Iraqi invasion is really yet to be decided. besides, the situation your proposing relies far too heavily on your own personal convictions. to be safe, we'll just say that this one is a bit too morally and ethically a subject to bother debating.

 

World War III

The world is infinitely more stable than it was in the early and mid 20th Century. Unless somthing truly major happens, it is unlikely that multiple countries will team together to battle each other.

 

The war will obviously be, a fight against "terrorism", but is that what it truly is? Is it a coincidence that the Middle-East, hub of terrorism, is a warehouse of oil and resources? There is no coincidence. In fact, It was inevitable. When the resources run out, countries will struggle to sap the last drop of oil, even if it means declaring war. It is unfortunate to see that such a moment has come this early, when humans have learned to make mutual friendships and co-operations.

again, i don't think there is much of a coincidence between the two. besides, what exactly is your view about the terrorist strikes in Indonesia, India, or even several African nations?? the point is that terrorism is not something that is centrally apart of the Middle East.

[Prime]

and i highly doubt that the US would invade one of its closest allies in the Middle East.

Iraq was once an ally of the US.

 

 

Things change.

 

ahh, here we go again with the assumptions that all Americans are a bunch of greedy bastards looking to conquer the world.

Not all Americans, but sometimes the US government certainly comes across that way.

[stingerhs]

Iraq was once an ally of the US.

 

<snip>

 

Things change.

touche.

Not all Americans, but sometimes your government certainly comes across that way.

i agree, but at least i can say that its not my fault since i didn't vote for him.

[Achilles]

Iraq was once an ally of the US.

With all due respect to your point, this is a bit of an understatement. We weren't only an ally, we funded Saddam's regime and provided military support. Why? Because we wanted someone to help us keep an eye on Iran. I'm sure that this decision had no impact on how we are viewed in the middle east.

 

IIRC, we also did the same thing with Osama bin Laden while he was fighting commies in Afganistan. Yay for us.

 

Not all Americans, but sometimes your government certainly comes across that way.

I know many people (most of them Republicans) that will flat out tell you that it's our job to run the world. I'm sure that this philosophy has no impact on how we are viewed by the rest of the world.

[Jae Onasi]

With all due respect to your point, this is a bit of an understatement. We weren't only an ally, we funded Saddam's regime and provided military support. Why? Because we wanted someone to help us keep an eye on Iran. I'm sure that this decision had no impact on how we are viewed in the middle east.

 

IIRC, we also did the same thing with Osama bin Laden while he was fighting commies in Afganistan. Yay for us.

 

I know many people (most of them Republicans) that will flat out tell you that it's our job to run the world. I'm sure that this philosophy has no impact on how we are viewed by the rest of the world.

 

We were indeed allied with Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Bear in mind that we were just coming off the Iranian hostage crisis, Iran's government being taken over by radicals, and a '70's gas shortage, none of which did nothing to make us feel all warm and fuzzy about Iran. Most people didn't really know much about that war then (or at least that's how I remember it, anyway, but I wasn't old enough to think critically about these things then), and those that did didn't mind going after the SOBs who'd kidnapped our guys. Khomeini was feared then and he enjoyed rattling his saber and making provocative statements. Since we didn't know Saddam like we do now because he'd only been in office about a year before the Iran/Iraq war broke out, there seemed to be no reason _not_ to support him. I have no doubt that the US was deeply concerned about what a very radical Iran, with some weapons obtained from Communist China and N. Korea, would do if it got control of Iraq's oil and other resources, and Iraq undoubtedly was delighted to have our help. So, it was a little more complex than just wanting to keep an eye on Iran.

 

I do love being an American citizen, even with all the baggage. But I will agree that most of us have no clue what's going on in other countries, which means we tend to develop this very provincial view that since what we do here works so well, then everyone should do the same.

[HerbieZ]

Why do i get the distinct feeling that Battlefield 2142 snuck into this thread a few posts back.

[Achilles]

So, it was a little more complex than just wanting to keep an eye on Iran.

Perhaps I should have expounded upon my comment by including all the points you made, but I really didn't think it was necessary. Your points are absolutely valid, however (right or wrong) I assumed that everyone would be aware of them and take my comment in context.

 

I do have to think that the US was perfectly aware of the methods that Saddam used to consolidate power. While having the choose the lesser of evils, I can't say that I begrudge the administration of their decision. However, if we knew what he was doing, and all of his neighbors knew what he was doing, and we chose to back him anyway, then we undoubtely looked like opportunistic a**holes trying to play chess with their homelands.