RE: Iraq and energy

["John Danahy" <jdanahy@turbonet.com>]

Hmmm!  Didn’t the Soviets have the same ideas about the Balkans?  Chechnya?  How do you “occupy” a region of such diverse cultures, all of whom hate each other only slightly less than they hate us?

 

John Danahy

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Kaag [mailto:dkaag@turbonet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:57 PM
To: Vision 2020
Subject: Re: Iraq and energy

 

Visionaries:

... It occurs to me, albeit sneakily, that if we DO invade and occupy Iraq, and then, as several Republican point men on the Sunday talkies suggested, militarily occupy it for a very long time in order to "build democracy", we will in effect then own a piece of the Persian Gulf "oil patch", and be in a position to pump millions of gallons of cheap crude into tankers on a regular basis and send them sailing off to the U S o A.

This entire eminent iteration of gunboat diplomacy may be a deep Republican plot to continue America's dependence on big pickup trucks and "soccer mom" SUV's. Not to mention thumbing our noses at the Saudis, who will then not have such a sweet lock on the oil barrel padlock via OPEC.

Regards,

Don Kaag

On Tuesday, Oct 8, 2002, at 13:30 US/Pacific, Charles Fulford wrote:

Members,
I sent an email of concern to the senators and our representative considering
war in Iraq and asking to consider an energy plan that would cut our dependence
on foreign oil to alleviate our problems in the region. It seems the decision is made and final.
Taze Fulford

 

October 8, 2002

Charles Taze Fulford
407 North Jefferson St. Apt 4
Moscow, ID  83843

Dear Charles,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about Iraq. I appreciate
hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.

As you know, the President recently sent a draft resolution to Congress
authorizing whatever force is necessary to enforce existing United Nations
(UN) resolutions on Iraq. This is in response to repeated violations over
the past 11 years of resolutions dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program, respect for the cease-fire agreement, treatment of
the Kurdish minority, and the international weapons embargo. Iraq's
intransigence on all of these issues, combined with its existing ballistic
missiles and known chemical and biological weapons programs, make it a
constant danger to its neighbors in the Middle East and a natural ally of
all states and groups who seek to harm the United States. Even more
dangerously, Iraq has shown that it is committed to acquiring nuclear
weapons and, given enough time, will almost certainly do so.

Authorizing the use of force is one of the most important decisions a
Member of Congress can make. I have talked to hundreds of Idahoans, and
received comments from hundreds more, with their views. I have also
listened carefully to briefings by senior military and intelligence
officials and heard the President's speeches laying out the case for
action.

After carefully looking at the evidence, talking to my fellow Idahoans,
and giving it much thought, it has become clear that the threat of an Iraq
armed with weapons of mass destruction, allied with terrorists, and
hostile to the United States must be dealt with swiftly. The United
States, hopefully in partnership with the rest of the world, but if not
then with close allies such as the United Kingdom and others, should take
steps to end the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. While I am
hopeful that this can be accomplished without war, it may prove to be a
necessity.

I understand those who remain concerned. We have to balance the somber
decision of sending our young men and women into harm's way against what
may be imminent danger to us all. In my view, we no longer have a choice.
I will vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq to prevent it from
ever threatening the peace of the rest of the world again.

Thank you once again for contacting me.
As always, "Idaho - Esto Perpetua"
?
C.L."Butch" Otter
Member of Congress
CLO/mmj