quote:
Again, Iraq is not even a source we need. We get plenty of oil from other sources. If oil production stopped entirely in Iraq, it might slightly affect the world price of oil, but it is far from the only oil-game in town.
Iraq has the second highest oil reserves in the world. Bush never really hid his objective, as I recall, we sent soldiers over to "secure" oil reserves. Read the article I posted, it was really enlightening.

"whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a "stranglehold" not only on our economy but also "on that of most of that of the other nations of the world as well." This is a powerful image, and perfectly describes the administration's thinking about the Gulf area, except in reverse: by serving as the dominant power in the Gulf, WE maintain a "stranglehold" over the economies of other nations. This gives us extraordinary leverage in world affairs, and explains to some degree why states like Japan, Britain, France, and Germany--states that are even more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than we are--defer to Washington on major international issues (like Iraq) even when they disagree with us. "

"For all of these reasons, American leaders would like to reduce America's dependence on Saudi Arabia. But there is only ONE way to permanently reduce America's reliance on Saudi Arabia: by taking over Iraq and using it as an alternative source of petroleum. Iraq is the ONLY country in the world with sufficient reserves to balance Saudi Arabia: at least 112 billion barrels in proven reserves, and as much as 200-300 billion barrels of potential reserves. By occupying Iraq and controlling its government, the United States will solve its long-term oil-dependency dilemma for a decade or more. And this, I believe, is a major consideration in the administration's decisionmaking about Iraq. "

[qoute]And stop with that "Europeans hug dictators" crap. The Republicans installed Pinochet in Chili over a democratically elected government. In the seventies, the US helped the military junta of Greece to break up student demonstrations asking for democracy. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, the list of dictators supported or installed by the US goes on and on. Even Saddam was on the payroll of the CIA while he was gassing the Kurds in the eighties. Guatemala/United Fruit Co. How's that for "dictator hugging"?[/qoute]

Yeah, going over US history since Kennedy makes the humanitarian/seeds of democracy arguement seem funny. Just look at US history of trade and intervention in Iraq! We only care about democracy if it's in our interest.

quote:


The neocon right only cares about human rights and democracy when it serves their purposes. When human rights and democracy get in the way of US/corporate/military-industrial interests, they are thrown out the window like a used Kleenex!

Exactly

quote:
I have the feeling that if someone other than Bush had invaded and developed Iraq, the action would be given more credit for the bold move it is.
I doubt it.