When is a pre-emptive strike acceptable?

[Wicked Pilot]

Saddam could gas his people and his neighbors almost all he wanted and while we may impose political and economic sanctions, we would never put a single soldier on the ground to try and stop him.

Sadly true, to an extent. Although, I believe that the motivation for this way is to avenge Daddy and clean up unfinished business, not oil.

I think I'd have to agree somewhat with you on this one. Our motivations for the first Gulf War were pretty clear cut. But motivations for this one don't seem to be so obvious, and probably vary greatly between different policy makers.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Bullshit

Sure moron

What other reasons can you state that would point to Bush actually moving to topple Saddam.

The last four years of war we've been fighting with him for starters

We haven't been fighting during the past 4 years to topple saddam, we've been limiting his military ability for the most part, destroying weapons factories and munitions. A ground war is a lot different from creamy bombing runs. The fact that there has been lukewarm conflict for the past four years does not make an unprovoked attack anymore probable.

The oil basis has the obvious double standard between the treatment of Iraq compared to the treatment of the DPRK. Bush has no plans to go after Iran, and none to deal with NK.

Neither of which where fighting the US on a daily basis. And if Bush is after oil, why DOESNT he have plans to go after Iran? Its oil fields are only a few miles from the Iraqi boarder.

Should the Iranian government start hoarding oil or raise their prices too high, then they shall get bitchslapped by US policy. They don't they sell it at market price.

And Bush attempted a major coup in Venezuela against the anticorporate sovereigntist government.

The US supported an attempted bloodless coup politically, and soon backed away from that. Now do you have proof that the US was behind it, or just your own bullshit?

The rightwing rebel faction was said to have connections with the US, via the oil companies that create most of the GNP. Chavez was trying to limit corporate sovereignty in Venezuela, and the companies wanted him dead.

Durran:
The US does need Iraqi oil, as it is getting bogged down by high prices. You ought to try to think about this.
The higher the prices the lower the demand, and thus car manufacturers lose money, and oil and gas companies lose money because they cannot sell as much. If they can make gas and oil very cheap, then they can raise demand, and use that demand to sell more and make money. They don't lose profit. Besides with the US occupying Iraq, they can control output and prices(to a lesser extent). The US would be gaining a stable supply of oil which is nearly completely under their control.
Going to war in Iraq means that the US cannot be price gouged by the Saudis or the Iranians. It also means that OPEC will be substantially less powerful.

[Joe]

We haven't been fighting during the past 4 years to topple saddam, we've been limiting his military ability for the most part, destroying weapons factories and munitions. A ground war is a lot different from creamy bombing runs. The fact that there has been lukewarm conflict for the past four years does not make an unprovoked attack anymore probable.

The fact that Bill Clinton shifted U.S. policy on Iraq to regime change has made this war nothing short of an inevitability. U.S. foreign policy has been moving towards this war for quite some time.

The rightwing rebel faction was said to have connections with the US, via the oil companies that create most of the GNP. Chavez was trying to limit corporate sovereignty in Venezuela, and the companies wanted him dead.

Chavez is trying to create another communist police state like Cuba in Venezuela. You're damn right the U.S. wants him out.

The US does need Iraqi oil, as it is getting bogged down by high prices. You ought to try to think about this.
The higher the prices the lower the demand, and thus car manufacturers lose money, and oil and gas companies lose money because they cannot sell as much. If they can make gas and oil very cheap, then they can raise demand, and use that demand to sell more and make money. They don't lose profit.

Ceteris paribus, the demand for oil is relatively inelastic; it's not quite as responsive to shifts in price as are luxury goods. People will always need gasoline, regardless of how high the prices climb, and the oil companies will always have a steady stream of income. They do not need to create any demand for oil; it's already there. They will indeed lose profit on account of the lower prices; the quantity of gasoline demanded will not increase to a great extent as the price drops, thus lowering the amount of revenue collectible per each barrel of oil sold, thus squeezing profit margins. The release of Iraqi oil to the market will not benefit the oil companies.

Besides with the US occupying Iraq, they can control output and prices(to a lesser extent). The US would be gaining a stable supply of oil which is nearly completely under their control.

Unfortunately, the oil will be going to the new Iraqi government to help finance the rebuilding of the country.

Going to war in Iraq means that the US cannot be price gouged by the Saudis or the Iranians. It also means that OPEC will be substantially less powerful.

The OPEC nations are not out to screw us, believe it or not, they're out to maintain stable prices for their product. And the U.S. has an interest in keeping OPEC relatively powerful, since without OPEC the American oil industry will be gone. The goals of OPEC and the United States concerning oil are not that divergent.