On Monday 2004-04-05 23:35, Andrew Paul wrote: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Dan Minette wrote:
> And I hope they are better off, cos that seems to be only shred of > justification left for this war, so it would be nice if we got that right. Justifications: -- Energy security, energy security, and energy security! Saudi Arabia is not *nearly* as stable as one would like, nor are other Gulf states. -- Permanent basing rights. (Needed mostly to insure energy security.) -- Create government friendly to the US and other Anglophone allies per Germany Japan and Italy. -- Intimidation of regimes hostile to the US, especially those whose security apparatuses may be sponsoring (admittedly old fashioned) terrorists. (For example, Libya suddenly has a new attitude.) -- Prior to war we were looking at Iraq being an eternal diplomatic and security concern for US foreign policy. With the war and occupation Iraq is still likely to be a diplomatic disaster but at least it's not GURANTEED to be an ongoing foreign policy cesspool. Yes, its nice that the Iraqis are better off, but if alturism is the only justification for this war then the Administration and its Perlescent advisors are incompetent. There are no end of situations that could benefit from from US peacekeeping or military interventions. Do we interveve? No! Why not? Because it is not in our national interest (as Republicans are usually the first to point out). Yes, the Iraqis are no worse off and are probably better off. That's darling. I'm happy for them. But it is entirely inadequate to justify the cost in American lives, treasure, and diplomatic capital. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
