Tell me about your mother....
There is probably no one basic reason that the war in Iraq started, but as usual it was probably a culmination of a number of messy circumstances, including the intelligence you mentioned. I found it odd, and I'm wondering if I'm the only one who remembers, but initially it was on the news that they had indeed found weapons components for nuclear war-heads... even showed video of it on the news, and then very soon thereafter it was rescinded and claims were made that no nuclear weapons were found, and that one little newscast disappeared into oblivion. Kind of makes me wonder what they DID find... perhaps something scarier than the nuclear weapons that all of us fear so much. Who knows? I do not like everything Bush has done. I infact really don't like the man himself much, but... I also respect the fact that the man sticks to his guns. I do not see all of the intelligence reports, and I do not have to wieght the responsibility of some 6.2 billion people in the world.
I say that's why we've never had a female president... we're smart enough to know that's not the kind of responsibility we want.
c'mon!
your presidents are only guaranteed four years at a time, and you mean to tell me they don't even know where the bathroom is almost a whole year into it?
i wonder if you really believe that.
i like your argument about oil, though. i disagree with it, but it sounds good. military bases? good one, too.
You do not address the fact that the u.s. needed at least one more pro-american regime in the region to counterbalance the arab league folks of whom you spoke earlier. Saudi Arabia alone won't do it...
Of course the problem is far more complex than simply getting our hands on oil... for that we'd dig out alaska. The question is power and influence, those subtle weapons america wields so well. The threat to our great ally, israel, was too much. Oil just lubricates the deal... and not right now... that's tinking too short-term. Once we have a strong, stable, pro-american government there (who knows damn well how they got there), we can use that against the rest of the camel-riding heathens.
Before you know it, we'll have 'em eating ham in riyadh.
LOL...
I also love how conservatives/republicans/what-have-you spend so much time telling those of us who know no better that Clinton was a skirt-chasing moron who wasted his time in office... and then justify bush's actions because he did no better than the fool he replaced.
classic...
I never cared about Clintons skirt chasing- He was in good company, on both sides of the aisle. The whole episode was a sorry one.
Now, as for oil- I think the Caspian Sea producers will be of far greater importance than Gulf producers- in the long run. Short term, yes- the Gulf is key.
That said, KSA's needs us to protect them from Iran and the then Iraq. Israel was no threat to KSA- in fact, they have been dealing with them on the sly, for decades- I have seen it myself, in the Kingdom.
I'm not sure I understand your reference to the Arab League. They exist primarily to buttress the regimes already in place. If anything, another pro west regime (read democracy) would only force the Arab League to 'circle the wagons.'
Lastly, you might be able to make an argument about Bush/Saddam, but as to oil, I just don't see it. The numbers aren't there.
Since you're basically addressing my points, I'll address yours:
1. Oil and sanctions: Lifting UN sanctions on Iraq would have allowed us to BUY more oil, not CONTROL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Now, we all of a sudden have US firms controlling production and distribution, instead of Russian and French firms. Pretty good upside, that.
2. Sure, in 1948 and 1967 there was a plan for a Palestinian state. But there was virtually no American voice in favor of a sovereign Palestine in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. The first I ever heard someone support a free Palestine (and I could be wrong, but this was the first I heard) was Hillary Clinton when she was running for Senate. At the time, because I was so used to the US's pro-Israeli stance and silence on a free Palestine, I thought her remarks were incredibly incendiary, especially in New York. But President Bush the Second has started talking about a Palestinian state, too. So, we're finally breaking 30 years of no-policy on giving the Palestinians some land. So it wasn't really a "remarkably consistent" policy over the years.
3. Military bases: Saudi Arabia is increasingly a black mark on the record of any Presidential administration, as it's not democratic, supports terrorism with one hand while shaking our hand with the other, and has a pretty piss-poor record of human rights violations. Lots of money there (and lots of connections to the Bush family), but not really a positive in the eyes of the American people to be aligned so closely with SA. Same with Qatar and UAE. Kuwait's small and not centrally located. Iraq's big, has land, sea, and air base capabilities, has infrastructure to support troop movements, has access to EVERY nation in the middle east by short air hop, and is now at least nominally democratic -- and the government there is pretty beholden to us. Much better than the others.
4. Literacy and Germany: Yes, Germany was literate pre-Hitler. Look at it now. Post-Hitler, it took to democracy pretty well, wouldn't you say? That was the hope for Iraq, that a literate population would reduce the occurrence of fundamentalism and would increase the desire for a democratic system. That's still the hope.
5. President Bush: I'm sorry, but if a President's transition team hasn't "completed their work" in 9 months, then something is incredibly wrong. A transition should not take a full 25% of the term of office -- it should take a month or two. As for the plan for the war -- do you really think he (along with his father, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and the rest of his Republican advisors) couldn't devise at least the sketchy plan that was used in Iraq before being in office? Now you're just being naive, Sig, because it doesn't take Presidential authority to draft an invasion plan. You and I could sit down tonight and draft an invasion plan. We might even be able to come up with a post-war occupation plan, too, unlike some people.
...6. President Clinton: He targeted specific locations based on intelligence; he didn't plan an invasion and occupation. He destroyed those targets and Saddam's capabilities; he didn't topple entire cities to do it. What's more, he told us exactly what he was doing at the time; he didn't make some tenuous link between Iraq and terrorism. And if he destroyed Iraq's nuclear infrastructure in 1998, then what were we looking for in 2003?
Square1: Sticking to your guns just for the sake of sticking to your guns is not admirable. If you're doing it just to avoid being embarrassed, then it's tragic. If you're doing it because you actually believe in what you're doing, then it's only worthy of note if what you believe is in the slightest bit supported by the actual facts. And while we're talking about sticking to guns, it's not President Bush's number one virtue: see his Social Security plan's defeat, the petering-out of the movement for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, etc. But if it's an issue that allows him to make a speech using the words "9/11" or "freedom," then he sticks to his guns no matter what. History, and the death toll, will ultimately decide if that's admirable.
miguel: Right on. You said what I was going to.
SC&A parte the seconde: Are you saying that without a democratic state in the middle of the region, the Arab League would moderate itself of its own accord? When, how, for what reason, who would push for it, etc.? I don't see that happening recently, and there seems to have been a trend of MORE theocracy and fundamentalism in the region, not less. But take one of the largest Arab states, with a good economy (once we rebuild it), right in the center of the Arab world, and there may be a bit more influence on its neighbors than you think.
wow
can i say that again?
wow
No boomr- I'm saying that the Arab League is not germane to change in the region- change is the last thing in their raison d'etre.
Change, as we learn from Lebanon (and that was a MILD regime) has to come from the fabled Arab street.
Given the tyrannical nature of these regimes, democratic and free market systems neighboors, won't make a difference.
It didn't in Europe and won't in an even more backward region.
After lunch, we'll post on the first part of your comments. Well done, boomr.
So if the Arab League isn't germane to democratization, then you're essentially advocating the invasion and forced democratization of the entire Middle East.
Isn't this what those crazy fundamentalists over there are ranting about?
yay!
we're invading THE WHOLE middle east?
i gotta buy more shares in halliburton...
thanks for the heads up!
Get 'em before evidence of Enron-accounting surfaces...
health insurance colorado health insurance colorado health insurance colorado // golf gambling games golf gambling games golf gambling games
Commenting by HaloScan
