> -----Original Message----- > From: Bryon Daly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 01:21 PM > To: Brin List > Subject: RE: EU Warns Iraq It Faces 'Last Chance' > > > Jeffrey Miller wrote: > > > >When we announce that a big part of our military plan is to > seize and > >control oil fields for the next 5-10 years, and to let the country > >evolve its own leadership for the next 2-4 years, > > So you're saying the US intends to retain total control of > the Iraqi oil fields for up to 8 years beyond when a new > Iraqi government has been formed? I don't buy this at all - > can you link to any reasonable source that shows this as a > stated goal?
I'll dig back, but the general theme of "we'll have to control the oil fields while the fledgling democracy gets on its feet.. for their own good, of course" is one I've seen often in the past. > As I understand it, the goal is to "sieze and control" the > *entire country* > (ie: not just the oil fields), long enough to depose Saddam, > put an end to the WMD research/acquisition, and put a > self-ruling democratic Iraqi government in place. Too bad that there is no WMD research or acquisition going on, and that we're going to be hard-pressed to set up a democracy there. We're going to be there for far long than anyone seems willing to admit - far more, in any case, than the 18-24 months that most pessimistic commentators in the administration seem to think. > >when one of our strategic goals is the destabilization of > Saudi Arabia, > > Destabilization of Saudi Arabia? When has anyone in the > govenerment stated this? Quite clearly. I refer you to Richard Pearle's analysis and subsequent comments from Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, and Cheney. > >when the only reason we care about these otherwise resource poor > >countries is the oil fields.. how is that /not/ about oil at > its very > >core? > > Have you forgotten the whole disarmament/weapons of mass > destruction thing? Iraq training al-Qaeda agents on chemical > weapons development? Is that not a concern? No, because a) disarmament is no more pressing an issue on 9/12 than it was on 9/10 b) inspectors aren't turning up much of anything, c) if we had intelligence on a WMD program enough to kill multiple people over, why aren't we sharing it with inspectors, a d) there's no proof of Iraqi involvement with AQ. > Do you think the US doesn't have other interests/motivations > besides oil? Is the US incapable of doing anything > humanitarian? How oil-rich were Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia? ..and look how long we procrastinated when there was actual bloodshed on the ground, at how we ran at the first sigh of blood -- and for that matter, what about other humanitarian crisis' that have occured or are occuring around the world? We're not intervening there, are we? > If the US is so hot for Iraq's oil: > 1) We could just remove the sanctions against Iraq, and > they'd be glad to sell the US all the oil we want. It'd be > far cheaper to do that than the hundred billion plus we'll > have to spend on regime change. We can't do that, because of the aftermath of the GW and the political actions since. > 2) We could just have rolled on to Bagdad and easily taken it > in 1991. We could also have retained control of Kuwait or > put in a puppet government there instead of handing it back > to Kuwait's king. Yes, we /could/ have, however that was an untenable position to have taken during the 95th hour of the invasion. Read "Crusade" for a basic intro to these issues. > Seriously, all the "the US just wants the > oil" rhetoric I'm seeing is *identical* to what the anti-war > protesters were saying before Desert Storm. Yup, and its the same issue. Bush Sr himself said (before polls told him it was a dumb thing to say) that besides the obvious humanitarian/global stability issue of the Kuwait invasion by Iraq, we couldn't let them (with the then.. what, 4th? 5th largest standing army) display such aggression within sight of the world's main oil supply. There are PLENTY of other issues at stake - that you can only defend a war in Iraq by attacking one platform of the peace movement isn't terribly convincing. > My school was > full of protests with "no blood for oil" signs and claims > that the US's goal was to annex Iraq. School - that's telling. Youth always rebels :) > The reality was that > the US did what it said it would do and got out. Isn't that > at least one fairly convincing piece of evidence the US would > keep its word this time around as well? Except that we DIDN'T. We've had at least one military engagement with Iraq - air-to-air, radar sites bombed, cruise missile attacks, etc - every week since the end of the GW, not to mention maintaining the no-fly-zones, the bases in Saudi Arabia (you know, the ones that has Osama's beard all twisted up), and our Coast Guard and Navy running random interdiction efforts against all Persian Gulf naval traffic. -j- _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
