Some Republicans are unbelievably naive and gullible towards America's foreign policy. Some Republicans think liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq. They actually believe that Bush's motives were noble. They say that Bush is a moral man who has a noble God-given mission to spread freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. That's nonsense. Only gullible idiots believe that the US invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wants to make the Iraqi people happy. It's naive to think that the US toppled Saddam just because Bush wanted the Iraqis to experience the joys of democracy.
The fact is that Bush and Cheney are former oil executives. They know that the US is dependent on the Middle East oil. They know that Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the world. America invaded Iraq because corporate bosses who control the US government wanted to secure the oilfields there. The Bush administration was motivated by oil, not terrorism. There are two strategic goals the war was fought for: controlling the second largest oil reserves in an oil-thirsty world, and establishing military bases required for the political transformation of the Middle East to serve American interests. The US is in Iraq because America depends on foreign oil and because America wants to remake the Middle East to serve its own interests. Control over Iraq's oil limits US dependence on OPEC and increases the production of Iraqi oil, which was limited after economic sanctions were put on Iraq in 1990. There is nothing "noble" about the Iraq war. The Bush administration doesn't give a damn about the interests of the Iraqi people. The Bush administration only cares about the interests of the oil industry. Gullible Republicans say that this is just liberal propaganda. They can't accept the fact that Bush works for American companies instead of the American people.
During the Clinton administration, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and other current Bush administration officials joined together in the "Project for the New American Century", which advocated a regime change in Iraq. The project members stated that "we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf". They sent a letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a hazard to a significant portion of the world's supply of oil. Here's the letter:
A document entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century" reveals that 5 months before 9/11 the US advocated using force against Iraq to secure control of its oil. The document describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in history. It targets Saddam Hussein as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of military intervention as a means to fix the US energy crisis. The document says, "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the US allies in the Middle East and to the flow of oil from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets". It also says,"The US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq , including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments". Here's the document:
A document entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" reveals that an energy task force led by Dick Cheney was examining Iraq's oil assets two years before the war began. Here's proof:
A blueprint entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century" written by the neo-conservatives in 2000 says: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." The document supports a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." Here's the blueprint:
George Bush Sr. made it clear when he said that it was America's strategic interests that caused the US to go to war against Saddam Hussein. The only strategic interest the US has in the Gulf is oil. Former Secretary of State James Baker said, "It's a very simple question. It's spelled in tree letters: oil."
Good post, Lou_Sir, and a timely reminder what Iraq is really about.
Wars are nearly always about self-interest, strategic manouevering and power plays, and nearly always dressed up in the cloak of liberation, democracy and freedom. Virtually all the European nations used to do it and continue to do so today only on a smaller scale. The British were a dab hands at fleecing the natives out their resources while telling the folks back home that they were educating and rescuing the savages from themselves.
Saying that there are interesting times ahead because Sistani and the Shia south look like winning an overwhelming majority and Amerca's golden boy - Allawi - looks like he's going to get kicked out, which means that the winners of this election may be more powerful and more difficult to control than the Neocons ever imagined, but then that's no surprise because Bush and chums don't seem like the smartest fish in the sea.
The US, unlike the empires of old Europe, has always preferred to exercise its hegemony indirectly. It has relied on local relays - uniformed despots, corrupt oligarchs, pliant politicians, obedient monarchs - rather than lengthy occupations. It was only when rebellions from below threatened to disrupt this order that the marines were dispatched and wars fought.
During the cold war, money was supplied indiscriminately to all anti-communist forces (including the current leadership of al-Qaida); the 21st-century recipients are more carefully targeted. The aim is slowly to replace the traditional elites in the old satrapies with a new breed of neo-liberal politicians who have been trained and educated in the US. This is the primary function of the US money allocated to "democracy promotion". Loyalty can be purchased from politicians, parties and trades unions. And the result, it is hoped, is to create a new layer of janissary politicians who serve Washington...
Al Sistani and his followers are more democratic than those of his Iranian counterparts in Iran. Al Sistani will enbolden the Iran movement to a more democratic society in Iran. Iran is worried about this election. This is a great thing. Al Sistani also believes in separation of Mosque and Government which will be part of the Constitution because he doesn't believe in an Islamic run state.
USA1
Ever remember the leader of Iran in the 1970's who was deposed with the help of the Americans????
The Shah of Iran was as western leaning and democratic as ever there was a leader in the Arab Middle East.
Why the change in American policy since the 1970's?
Have they finally now realized who they should be supporting in the ME?
And if so, why has it taken so long to discover this?
Also, since we are in the Iraq forum....Bush Sr. put Saddam into power as well....I guess he just didn't like his CIA asset turning on him....
It's a freaking mess in the ME and the USA helped create it.
I guess they're feeling the guilt of their sins and are now trying to clean up their mess of 40 years.
USA1 said this in post #4 : Al Sistani and his followers are more democratic than those of his Iranian counterparts in Iran. Al Sistani will enbolden the Iran movement to a more democratic society in Iran. Iran is worried about this election. This is a great thing. Al Sistani also believes in separation of Mosque and Government which will be part of the Constitution because he doesn't believe in an Islamic run state.
USA1, the Iraq-war foes will forever create all kinds of negative scenarios in their heads. It's their hobby, you see—and everybody needs a hobby.
Everyone is talking about Al Sistani etc. but no one has even tried to refute the main argument posted by Lou_Sir; that Iraq has been under focus for a long time due to it's oil resources, and this war isn't exactly the noble cause of spreading democracy that it is made out to be.
Does that mean that the war supporters agree that besides the proposed threat of WMDs, one of the prime implicit objectives was consolidation of American power in Middle-East and control of Iraq's rich oil resources?
I know the debate is an old one, but no one is refuting Lou_sir's argument with any counter-evidence. I have seen these facts before; I just want to know what the war-supporters have to say about it.
Agreed; oil is one of the major components of the strategy, and there is no denying it. To believe otherwise would be highly naive, as so many people demonstrate it in plenty.
The original post is irrefutable. There are other considerations but the neocons have already written something called the Project for the New American Century (catchy title). The thing is other coutries may want a say in who's top dog in the future, ie China, India or maybe even Russia or Europe. Look what happened to Iran when they tried to nationalise the oil in the 50's. That was unnacceptable to Britain and the US.
quote:
Iran
1951 NY Times
Iran's Parliament votes to nationalize the oil industry, and legislators backing the law elect its leading advocate, Dr. Mossadegh, as prime minister. Britain, not happy with the compensation offered for the oil nationalization, responds with threats and sanctions.
1953 NY Times
A CIA covert operation succeeds in overthrowing Iran's democratic government and installing the Shah as dictator.
1953-1979
The CIA, through SAVAK - the Iranian secret police - launchs a reign of terror on the civilian population. In 1976, Amnesty International said SAVAK had the worst human rights record on the planet, their CIA-textbook torture techniques were 'beyond belief.'
After the 1979 revolution, the Iranians find a CIA film made for SAVAK on how to torture women.
1954 NY Times
Iran announces an oil deal with British, French and American oil companies
quote:
George Bush I - 'The American lifestyle is not negotiable.'
Govt Report 2001 - The US's 'central dilemma' today is that 'the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience'.
The 20th century history of the Middle East shows the US+Britain prepared to overthrow governments, install rulers, invent countries, sponsor war, break promises and generally do whatever it takes to guarantee a ready supply of / control over that essential commodity - oil. This has understandably created a large amount of resentment throughout the Middle East, which the war with Iraq has only intensied.
h@ts said this in post #15 :
[B]It's about control, oil and power.
You hit it on the nose h@ts....I would maintain that "control" is the largest factor...we are being hit in the USA with so many petty rules and regulations in banking and other areas of our lives....first mind control....then physical control will come later.
I have to have a maverick/renegade mentality just to get thru the day and say frick it all!!!!
I doubt Iran will be attacked. US can't get it's afford to leave Iraq and invade Iran; it's resources will be stretched too thin. Right now all Mr. D can do is make loud noises and blow steam.
US foreign policy is unclear however. One day Condie is discussing with the Europeans and says the US is backing their diplomatic efforts to find some agreement with Iran. The next day Iran is threatened. The line is blurred. The risk is to see one day the US following some kind of "policy of the worst" and going further in the ME "democratisation" by invading Iran. The US deficit would be the winner of the game, by increasing more and more. The other countries of the "free world" are pressuring the US to contain this deficit because this world's economy is already endangered. So if another war isn't launched it is only because of economical factors.
