Jump to content

The Second Gulf war : a response to PBS Frontline


Kevin Trotter
 Share

Recommended Posts

While I still feel Bush's domestic policy is woeful and that he kowtows to the rich, I have a better perspective on the rationale for the War on Iraq. PBS Frontline did an excellent special outlining the steps taken that leads to our present policy and I must admit that some of my initial responses were premature.

Frontline is known as somewhat left leaning and it is forr that reason I was compelled to accept its objectivity.

They outline the steps that started in the first Bush White House and appear to attribute

the failure to unseat Saddam at the feet of Geo.H and Brent Scocroft for standing by while the Republican guard slaughtered the Kurds they had rallied to revolt. They blame a policy of containment a cold war holdover, as well.

Hawks like Paul Wolfowitz , William Kristol and Richard Perle urged the elder Bush not to "stand by idly and watch a mugging" referring to US troops deployed but ordered not to engage while the slaughter continued.

Wolfowitz drafted a new policy paper pushing preemption as the new stance the US should take.

In it he listed a number of regimes that he felt were poised to desatbilize key regions of the world and supporting terrorism to boot.North Korea , Iraq , Syria and a number of others were listed along with specific military actions to in effect "democratize" the countries where totalitarinism now exists.

Bush Scowcroft, Cheney and Powell read it and were immediately concerned they would be unable to build coalitions with our allies and would further the rift in the UN. Cheney was ordered to rewrite it to reflect the Administrations foreign policy stance.

From the beginning Perle and Wolfowitz knew the allies wouldnt support this action and urged

Bush senior to act unilaterally. This didnt occur and following Clinton's election , his administration took the same position. Even after it became obvious that Hussien was manipulating the inspection process their stance remained the same. After the Hawks (Wolfowitz,Perle,Kristal,

and Rumsfeld )wrote the President warning him of the situation after initially brushing it off as to politically risky, he ordered an attack and scuttled the mission before the planes were halfway to Iraq.

With the election of Dubya,the 911 disaster and the council of Rumsfeld , Rice and Wolfowitz the president adopted the policy of preemption.

They knew they were going to attack Iraq after they got finished with the Taliban and the actual plan was drafted in 1991.

While I still have vast misgivings about this war, it is clear to me it was not the political reaction I have so often said it was. It is also not a reactionary tactic , but is part of a strategy to transform anerican foreign policy.

Still dont agree with how our Pres. prioritzes things(have you looked at your retirement accounts and stock portfolios recently?} But I have to admit at least some of the motivation for this war is not what I thought it was. I still hope for a peaceful end to this but I fear we've gone too far for that now. I still feel this will only destabilize the region and put Israel at substantial risk as well as have a disasterous effect on our economy but at least I dont think Bush is as big a creep as I thought he was. It is clear that Bush jr made these decisions based on 9-11 and that prior to that was more open to containment. To me that says a lot.

If any one is interested in seeing Frontline

go to www.pbs.org and click on the War Behind Closed Doors for both text and video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Remo Williams

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

It would be nice if there were a peaceful solution, but some things in life can only be met with force.

Ditto!

If this is true it would explain why the inspectors haven't found much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post.

As far as destabilizing the region goes, I'm of the mind to finally let the crumbs fall where they may, and we'll clean it up later. The time of "realpolitik" is over (another Cold War holdover). With all the troops in the area, regime change in Iraq may go a long way towards preventing overall destabilization in the region.

Many countries in the region are silently hoping for change in Iraq. There are still a few "hot-spots" like Iran (where a civil split still exists) and Saudi Arabia, but maybe the Palestinian issue will be solvable after Hussein is ousted. I always wondered why "refugee camps" like Jenin still exist after decades. I don't think it's because the Israelis are keeping the Palestinians down, I think it's because "other interests" want to keep the Palestinians living in rubble.

Maybe a little "shake-up" is in order in the region, as troubling as it will be in the short-term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow, as cynical as this may sound, I have a feeling actual complete peace in the Middle East will never be achieved in any of our lifetimes. There are too many people in the region who want total power of it.

Here we go, watching as Bush Jr. finishes his father's war, and we all know thats one of the major factors in the causes of this war. We should have just finished Saddam off the first time.

Heh, wait till the end of this war, somehow I have a feeling the economy is gonna end up like it was at the end of the first gulf war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Post Race!!

I have been waiting for this policy to change for quite a while, and when 911 hit, it was just a matter of time.

We have to be preemptive if we are going to keep things like this from happening.

If we democratize Iraq, which is the main goal, we will see things destabalize locally BIG time, as dictator after dictator gets his butt kicked out and a new democratic regime installed, And the US backing and helping in any way we can.

They are jealous of our western economy etc and as long as they are under a dictator they will NEVER get that economy and money etc. Democracy and a free enterprise, capitalistic system is a MUST, then they will have the same opportunity that we have. Sure, it's unfair, but life is unfair, and competition is what drives the human spirit, at least they will have the opportunity to succeed if they work for it.

Our military is the strongest in the world, and I think one of the best things it can be used for is to free those that are oppressed, and having those oppressors use us as a distraction. Get rid of the oppressors, dictators, silly Islamic states etc, give the people their own voice in their own lives and watch everything get better, including of course our relationship with those countries as they show their appreciation for their freedom.

The time is ripe, the time is now, it is time to free the world so that we are safe.

With freedom comes responsibility, and with freedom comes prosperity, it is time for the world to prosper as we have, free them, and they will do that on their own and by themselves.

Sure, it will cost a little bit now, but in the long run..... It is a well spent investment, in our security, safety and of course our economy.

As the liberals say, "if it saves just one life!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the excuse; now go get Iraq (Saddam).

Iraq has refused to destroy her Al-Samoud-2 missiles. Saddam has challenged Bush to a debate along the lines of a presidential candidacy debate. Hehe, my plan is working perfectly.

This is personally the "proof" I have been waiting for and why I always felt the US should play by the rules. No need for Dredd's "10 points of light". They were bogus. THIS is what is needed to sway UN opinion.

Oh wait, I'm a liberal I think. Really I promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

They are jealous of our western economy etc and as long as they are under a dictator they will NEVER get that economy and money etc. Democracy and a free enterprise, capitalistic system is a MUST, then they will have the same opportunity that we have. Sure, it's unfair, but life is unfair, and competition is what drives the human spirit, at least they will have the opportunity to succeed if they work for it.

how do u know what they are jealous of? its kinda funny the US gallavants around the world preaching democracy is the way and, and we dont even follow it ourselves. the US is a republic, which means we have our own dictators, oops i mean representatives. same meaning isnt it? they both decide what rules will effect the country and what that country will do. and the ppl have little to say about it

and what this about a free economy? it isnt all the free, just like we have no free trade. take for example Microsoft they says its a monopoly, which it isnt, but it should be free to be the best business it can. not stopped cause ppl dont wanna get off there @$$ and try Linux or Mac. and for our free trade y are there tariffs on imports? not free if u ask me? if america is so confident in its goods why make the competition pay to get it here? doesnt quality win? yes it does and thats y i know many ppl who buy foriegn cause in most cases they build a better product

quote:

The time is ripe, the time is now, it is time to free the world so that we are safe.

how do we know the world wants to be free? how do we know the world wants to be like the US?

quote:

With freedom comes responsibility, and with freedom comes prosperity, it is time for the world to prosper as we have, free them, and they will do that on their own and by themselves.

freedom and prosperity are not always hand in hand, there are many ppl in the US alone who are free but will never get to be prosperous, why the economy cant function on 100% of the ppl being prosperous

quote:

As the liberals say, "if it saves just one life!!"

saves one life at the cost of how many others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Warning*

Questioning fundamental ideas of freedom and liberty can lead to black listing, detention, torture, and assassination. In the event of confusion or misunderstanding of the ÔÇ£American WayÔÇØ please report to your nearest TV set and select any corporate media outlet for reeducation. This has been a public service announcement of:

TIA

"Freedom is having nothing to hide"

In association with:

Halliburton Industries

"Remember, war creates peace and jobsit just makes sense."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dnoyeB!

Iraq is in a constant state of internal war with different groups trying to grasp power. The US will not stop these wars. The US will never be a brutal as Saddam in putting down these rebellions. They will only intensify once the US enters Iraq.

We will bring only instability to the whole region. Turkey will be nervous and deploy troups to surpress a kurdish uprising. Iran is going to push and shove the Iraqi community to assist the shia or sunni minority(I forget which one). Saudia Arabia will be nervous about its oil and Monarchy.

Everyone will be mad at the US for whatever decision it makes for the future of Iraq.

What should we do? Iraq is a big mess created by the US, and we should probably clean it up. I hope we learn to stay out of others affairs, but we won't. We are going to pay a heavy price for this war. Bush will get the bonus that oil prices will be sky high once the region destabilizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AHH, another clueless one, well, they seem to come out of the woodwork.

Here, let me give you all a big clue, and those of you that have an actual clue know who you are, so please do not be offended by the above comment.

quote:

America threatens an epidemic of freedom

| March 5, 2003 | Janet Daley

Well, at least the claim that it's all about oil has collapsed. Even Martin Amis has to admit that. In a richly comic contribution to the debate, published in yesterday's Guardian, Mr Amis pronounced that the war in Iraq will not be an "oil grab", but an expression of "pure power".

Translation: the argument that America was interested in overthrowing Saddam only to get control of Iraq's oil supplies has proved rather embarrassing, since it has come out that France and Russia have a great vested interest in Iraqi oil and in keeping Saddam in power. As it turned out, oil was at the heart of the motives of the peace party's favourite leader, Jacques Chirac, at least as much as those whom the Left likes to call the "oil men" of the Bush Administration.

So now this war has to be all about "pure power" - which is to say, American power to do what it likes to the rest of the world, regardless of something called "international law".

I have lost count of how many times I have heard "the rule of law" flung against the Anglo-American cause, with varying degrees of precious self-righteousness, by anti-war protesters. They use this totemic phrase, which summons up one of the sacred notions of democratic political culture, in a way that is either meaningless or systematically misleading.

International law seems to amount to nothing more than corruptly manipulated decisions by the UN Security Council, many of whose members are totalitarian countries (and whose permanent members received this status on the basis that they were on the right side in the last world war).

I assume that we all accept the principle that, when we speak of "the law", we mean the body of legislation adopted by an elected government of the people and by the people (as opposed, say, to religious law as laid down by scripture). In this tradition, which dates from the Enlightenment and is the basis for all modern free societies, there are two possible senses to the concept of the rule of law.

One is that laws take their legitimacy from the active consent of the people in a given society. The populace elects a government on the understanding that it will accept and obey the laws that that government passes in its name. In a democratic country, the electorate tacitly agrees to a form of civil contract with the state: to keep the laws in return for the right to choose who will govern.

On this interpretation, an international "rule of law" is a nonsense. For it to have moral credibility, world law would require representative world government in which the entire population of the planet would have to have a vote. Whatever the "rule of law" is, it certainly isn't that.

The other interpretation is a concept of natural law that embodies certain inalienable human rights. This more metaphysical view rests on the moral assumption that certain principles are inherent in the human condition: that "all men are created equal", and that they are born with rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", for example.

This notion of "natural rights" has been a hot topic of debate among scholars for generations. It has its champions and its detractors in academe and the judiciary. But regardless of its logical difficulties, it probably constitutes some part of the received wisdom of most people's political and social attitudes.

On this account, it might be plausible to argue that there is such a thing as "international rule of law" based on the idea of liberty as a birthright. One of the most obvious things that it would prohibit would be the oppression, torture and murder of his own people that is routinely practised by Saddam Hussein. (It would also come down rather hard on some members of the Security Council whose consent the peace party is so adamant we obtain before invading Iraq.)

If this is your version of "international law", then you must be on the side of the Americans and the British who wish to free the Iraqi people from Saddam's rule. You must believe that it is the right of every person to be governed by his own consent, and to live without fear of persecution. Any international law worthy of the respect of free countries would entail the extension of that freedom to all of the people of the world.

It is precisely this brand of right and liberty that George W Bush and Tony Blair are advocating. To the extent that there can be any foundation for waving the book of international rules at them, it can be only on procedural grounds. They are in breach of the voluntary code that the nations that won the last war decided to adopt for themselves and to impose on the rest of the world through a mixture of coercion, bribery and power-broking. The phoney peace that the UN has presided over for most of our lifetimes was, in truth, dictated by the fearful logistics of the Cold War and the nuclear threat.

Now, as everybody keeps saying (even Martin Amis), we are on the verge of a new world, in which the communist bloc no longer provides a check on American power. For some bizarre reason, this seems to be regarded as a matter of regret, even by people who are not actually old Stalinist reprobates.

America untrammelled by the Soviet threat is about to unleash - what? An epidemic of freedom? A destabilising onslaught against dictatorship and terrorism? Oddly enough, the critics are almost right in their self-contradictions: America is both interventionist and isolationist. What its people want is to be left alone to enjoy their freedoms and their prosperity in peace.

Since September 11, they have realised that the only way they can achieve this is by bringing the chance of those freedoms to those who would threaten them.


There, so you have a clue yet? dnoybe or whatever your nick is, they said the same thing about Afghanistan, and the first Gulf war. Your "the sky is going to fall" is old hat and not worth even discussing, it just shows that you hear, but do not listen, nor learn.

It's too bad, but hang around a little longer, there are a few of us here that will clue you in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag: Good article.

Mother Jones: The article seems a bit paranoid to me. It talks at great length about an imperialist United States seizing control of the oilfields. What it stops short of saying is why? Are they implying that the United States wants to hoard all the oil for themselves? I don't think so. If anything, the United States wants to instill some security to the region so that we don't have a few madmen with one hand on the oil spigot and the other hand on the detonator.

Oil is the lifeblood of all the industrial nations of the world, not just the United States. All have a vested interest in seeing a stable Middle East that allows the countries to predict what their fixed expenses will be from year to year. Security and stability in the region is in everyone's interest -- we're just the one's with the ability to do something about it.

Mother Jones has to answer the question: what will the United States do with control of the region? Will we hoard the oil? Will be become the new despotic rulers who dole out the oil only to those that we like or will we flush out the dictators, allow the people of the region to establish new governments, and then leave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the plan as I understand it.

We go in with a major bomb blitz, then when we have weakened the military infrastructure enough, which won't take long, we will then come in from the south and the north. Protecting the oil fields and the Kurds.

Once we find Saddam and his republican guard, we destroy them both. UTTERLY!!!

Then we install a military governor for the duration. While we control Iraq, we keep any major military leaders that did what we told them to do, in other words, if they dropped their weapons and surrendered, we let them keep their jobs, most of the current Iraqi government stays in place to keep the country going.

We bring back the Iraqis that had to leave under Saddam, and we help them to create a democratic form of government, with federal, and state governments, based upon our own. THis will allow fairly autonomous local control and then each region has a voice in the federal government. This will hopefully keep all the different factions from trying to blow each other away.

We will be in Iraq for at least 5 years, playing security as the Iraqis build a new government for themselves.

WE WILL NOT INSTALL A NEW DICTATOR, we are NOT going to turn it into another colony, and we are NOT going to allow another dictatorship.

By taking out the current Iraqi government, we do a number of things.

Cut off funding to a lot of the MAJOR terrorist organizations, mostly in the west bank, the PLO, hammas, etc. This will allow the Palestinian people to actually have and start a peace process and hopefully will allow them their own state. But the terrorists there MUST be stopped first. The terrorists CANNOT be allowed a country, Palestine, to set themselves up for attacks on Israel. If they truly want their own country, cutting off ALL funding to these terrorists will be the first REAL step toward that.

When the Iranians see what we have done in Iraq, they will do the same themselves, they want it, and are ready to take out their government themselves in order to get it. We will most likely help them as well, but not directly.

Saudi Arabia, will either move in that direction and stop it's crazy Islamic fundamentalism, or the royal family will fall as well, then we will have 3 budding democracies in that region and most terrorism will be cut off from funding totally.

Iraq is first, and then like dominoes, the rest will fall.

We set back terrorism at least 30 years, and hopefully destroy any hope of the terrorists coming back, all funding will be gone, and the reasons for their success are gone. Economic poverty, given the chance the people in the middle east can and will create an economic powerhouse for themselves.

When we are finished, the middle east will be stable, with the people ruling themselves, and the terrorists will be weakened beyond recovery.

We kill 2 birds with one stone, and Bush frees close to 250 million people in one fell swoop and ensures our safety from terrorist attacks, probably forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Yes Lotharr, look in the mirror, you'll see exactly whom I am talking about.


When I look I don't see a person who advocates final solutions by labeling an entire people as animals....I keep forgeting you have so much in common with osama bin laden.

quote:

Security and stability in the region is in everyone's interest -- we're just the one's with the ability to do something about it.

Than the President needs to stand up and make that case. Otherwise he'll stick with what he has and anyone who examines the facts can see the hypocrisy and partial answers that do not satisfy the critical observer.

If everyone is involved than everyone needs to work it out. I think it is going to be ugly for America when Bush saunters out of the UN. The system is not perfect but we could have used our influence it an entirely different way and most likely achieved outstanding results....Bush turned this entire scenario into a lose lose from a criminally inept foreign policy.

quote:

what will the United States do with control of the region

They did answer that. Conquer the country, install a friendly regime, privatize the oil, big oil wins, the ousted aristocracy can return and become part of the new aristocracy as business men and everyone wins....we keep bases to insure that any self determination that Washington finds questionable can be "shaped and molded" into something pleasing to the corporate lobbyists. The revenues, as always, stay in the hands of local elites and the big oil share holders for whom the world turns. Share holders get their hard earned cut and the world is saved from inefficiency and any economic hiccups..we all know what happens when our normally docile middle class finds over a buck fifty at the pumps.

[ 03-07-2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

When I look I don't see a person who advocates final solutions by labeling an entire people as animals....I keep forgeting you have so much in common with osama bin lade

If you mean terrorists, then you are right on the button, because they are animals, otherwise you again are clueless as to what I am talking about, and fail to understand the TRUE underlying truth of this whole matter.

It really is too bad, I thought that you would be able to figure it out, but obviously, even when shown directly what is going on, you still can't figure it out.

That's too bad, but not at all surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

They did answer that. Conquer the country, install a friendly regime, privatize the oil, big oil wins, the ousted aristocracy can return and become part of the new aristocracy as business men and everyone wins...

I don't know what to make of this statement. If you look at the history of Saudi Arabia, American "big oil" developed that country and then the royal family nationalized the oil companies and kicked out "big oil." Today's "big oil" includes companies like British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. If the "friendly regime" comes from the country itself, who cares? As long as that regime sets up a process where the Iraqi people can oust the regime if they don't like them, then what's wrong with that?

quote:

we keep bases to insure that any self determination that Washington finds questionable can be "shaped and molded" into something pleasing to the corporate lobbyists.

Again, look at Saudi Arabia. America "made" that country and then the royal family turned it over to Islamic extremists without America intervening -- what history leads you to believe that America won't take a hands-off approach in Iraq after their regime change?

quote:

The revenues, as always, stay in the hands of local elites and the big oil share holders for whom the world turns. Share holders get their hard earned cut and the world is saved from inefficiency and any economic hiccups..we all know what happens when our normally docile middle class finds over a buck fifty at the pumps.

From where I sit, that's a good thing. As far as a "buck fifty" at the pumps goes, have you priced a gallon of milk lately? How about a gallon of mountain spring water? When you look at what you get for your "buck fifty," how come people aren't complaining about the cost of a gallon of the other things? You know what? The plastic container that the water comes in costs more than the water itself, but nobody complains about paying $2.00 for a liter of water on a hot day at the ballpark, so what's the big deal about a gallon of gasoline when you consider what you can do with it compared to a gallon of milk or a liter of water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Today's "big oil" includes companies like British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. If the "friendly regime" comes from the country itself, who cares? As long as that regime sets up a process where the Iraqi people can oust the regime if they don't like them, then what's wrong with that?


The biggest are Exxon-Mobil American based the next is Royal-Dutch-Shell British based....The two pushing the hardest for war. The Bush Blair regime will install business aristocrats and they will most likely dominate the political process.probably by claiming instability issuesand the normal routes of privatizing everything, dominating the media, and smashing unionshey we could rename it Lil America. The point is that most likely any interference between the post Saddam regime and big oil will be crushed and the issues manipulated like the current Venezuela situation....

Anyway, I checked the eight ball: Democracy not likely.

quote:

Again, look at Saudi Arabia. America "made" that country and then the royal family turned it over to Islamic extremists without America intervening -- what history leads you to believe that America won't take a hands-off approach in Iraq after their regime change?


Look at the current administrationÔÇÖs business backgrounds and future employment plans and type that again with a straight face.

We couldn't directly intervene in 1960 we had just established the anti-Soviet "Baghdad pact" and the red scare was more than enough to force us to behave civilly....and anyway OPEC was a result of ARMCO slashing prices to increase big oil profits....oops.

quote:

From where I sit, that's a good thing. As far as a "buck fifty" at the pumps goes, have you priced a gallon of milk lately?

Do you drive an SUV? No really...gas prices for the affluent can be exorbitant when your making that kind of mileage....anyway many Americans feel that cheap gas is an imperial entitlement of sorts...that may be changing slowly.

The bottom line is that these two oil conglomerates stand to gain huge revenues from "liberation"....and when you factor in the staggering big oil donations to the Bush campaign it should be clear..on one level this is a smash and grab jobon another it is something else.

The neocon position is clear. They want to reorder the Middle East into something happy and shiny in American format. This is the definition of imperialism.

Did anyone notice that the Tigris Euphrates is a fresh water source.by WTO-IMF regulations the new Iraq will have to liberalize their economy and privatize the water to be entitled to economic benefits..blue gold.I smell profit!

Ooooooits all a conspiracy..oooooo..until you do some research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just follow the green paper trail...

[For a more entertaining version, see below]

------

"Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.

Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

And so the problem remained; lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches."

-Douglass Adams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Steve Schacher

so what's the big deal about a gallon of gasoline when you consider what you can do with it compared to a gallon of milk or a liter of water?

quote:

Lotharr

anyway many Americans feel that cheap gas is an imperial entitlement of sorts...that may be changing slowly.

What Lotharr said and that you don't use 15 - 30 gallons of milk or water a week. Milk could double in price and it wouldn't hurt that much.

This entire situation IS about oil. Just not in the way Americans and other anti-war protestors originally thought. France is chin deep in relations with Iraq. Russia is not far behind. Germany may be the only honest protestor there is but I'm sure they have a smoking gun somewhere.

I liked that article Steve linked to a while back and I'm going to steal an idea from it. It may not be ABOUT oil but oil is a very important subplot to the whole affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dnoyeB!

I could tell you were waiting for someone to mention oil...Unfortunately I never suggested it was about oil, I said Bush would get the added BONUS of sky high oil prices. And he will.

The US wants more than they have now. The French Have enough as it is and can see that they will have less. No, its not about oil, thats just a bonus.

Frankly, the President should not be allowed to mobilize the troops as long as he receives financial gain from their mobilization. That is a conflict of interest in any other corporation.

I can see Saddam has no intention of disarming. I can also see that he is not threatning the US, and has a laughable military. Their is no rush. We can easily wait for the UN another 6 months.

I am not fooled by the President of the US, nor the president of Iraq. I'm indifferent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The neocon position is clear. They want to reorder the Middle East into something happy and shiny in American format. This is the definition of imperialism.

No it isn't, if the USA isn't interested in ruling the Iraq as a colony, and I don't believe that it is. I believe the USA is interested in setting up a self-rule system in Iraq. As the old saying goes, Democracies don't start wars.

quote:

The bottom line is that these two oil conglomerates stand to gain huge revenues from "liberation"....

The bottom line is that there are only a few companies in the world in a position to take advantage of the situation anyway. Why should anyone be surprised that an oil company would benefit from stability in the biggest oil region in the world? It's no different than the De Beers company benefiting from the largest diamond region in the world. You wouldn't expect a lumber company complain about not getting a share of the diamond business, so why would companies complain about oil companies taking advantage of stability in the oil regions?

quote:

What Lotharr said and that you don't use 15 - 30 gallons of milk or water a week. Milk could double in price and it wouldn't hurt that much.

I knew that. I left it hanging out there to see if someone would pick up on it. Still, when you think about how many jobs that "buck fifty" provides for vs. the liter of water, you see that oil is more than something that aristocrats get fat on. And also, the plastic container that the liter of water comes in is from oil, too, and probably results in more jobs than the water itself.

quote:

This entire situation IS about oil. Just not in the way Americans and other anti-war protestors originally thought. France is chin deep in relations with Iraq. Russia is not far behind. Germany may be the only honest protestor there is but I'm sure they have a smoking gun somewhere.

It's partly about oil, and for France and Russia, it's about unpaid loans and business contracts that they'd lose in a regime change. For France and Germany, it's also about what we'd find in the file cabinets of Hussein's offices -- France supplying experimental equipment and Germany supplying chemicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

No it isn't, if the USA isn't interested in ruling the Iraq as a colony, and I don't believe that it is. I believe the USA is interested in setting up a self-rule system in Iraq. As the old saying goes, Democracies don't start wars

Clearly we are about to start a war. Most likely we will be doing it in violation of international law as well. By 1441 the security council has the final say on what is or is not a material breach. If you want to claim that Saddam didn't do a belly dance for Bush and now we can invade I'm not buying it....as most of the free world agrees.

Your right we have no interest in occupying the region for an indefinate period of time. It's much easier to let the transnational corporations pull out the wealth supported by an indigenous government who may or may not care about the people. We do it all over the world for "free" trade, why should this be any different. But I bet we keep bases after the new regime is fully established....let em know who is really running the show....

quote:

Why should anyone be surprised that an oil company would benefit from stability in the biggest oil region in the world?

You think big oil is some neural or benign force. I don't agree. Big Oil bought Bush the presidency and most of his chicken hawks have major ties to oil.....even "condy".

quote:

France supplying experimental equipment and Germany supplying chemicals.


It is already known that we provided WMD material and information....shame on them for following our lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...