Moon Pie wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ]
] Like people
] ] today thinking that we're invading Iraq because of oil. It
] has
] ] nothing to do with oil.
] ]
] ]
]
] I'm sincerely curious, if the anticipated war on Iraq has
] nothing to do with oil, what does it have to do with? WMD?

We don't get our oil from Iraq. Most of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia and Latin America. Europe gets a lot of oil from Iraq, so I suspect that's why they are not interested in the war. Also, there's certainly a lack of interest in paying for it, since both France and Germany's economy is in the toilet. It has also been noted that France has some under the table agreements with the Iraqis that I'm sure they don't want aired.

I don't think it's about money either. At least not as the prime motivator. I think there is an interest in protecting our assets in the region, but I'll get to that in a second.

If you were to ask me really what I think it's about, it's about eliminating a home base for extreme terrorist activities. Saddam funds, trains, harbors, and incites a lot of terrorist activity, particularly within the region. He was the only person in the entire world to PUBLICALLY praise the 9/11 attacks. The point of disarming him seems more to make sure that a rogue group doesn't get ahold of one of his WMD versus him lobbing one at Israel, although I can see that happening as well.

A very close second seems to be the US's attempt at installing a westernized Arabic regime that would influence the rest of the region. Iraq is already the most progressive of the Arabic states in terms of culture, literacy, education, science, and economy. The only thing that's keeping them back is Saddam, a very well documented tyrant. If the US were to put in a regime that was more democratic, it would quickly accelerate the western influence in Iraq and eventually its neighbors. In effect, they would become more tolerant of western views and less likely to be militantly opposed to them, or at least have militants that can get serious support. This worked with the Soviet Union very well, and I can see the same gears turning for the Middle East. This would help protect the US's financial interests in the region (Saudi, Israel, India) and open up new markets and new allies, all the while helping to limit aggression.

I don't agree with the concept of war. I don't agree with spending $70B+ on this escapade. And I certainly don't agree with sticking our noses in other country's businesses. But what is the solution here? It's a complex problem. We could take the high road and say 'not our problem'. But what happens in 5 years? And what is the cost then? Sometimes life is messy, and you are forced to do things that are against your conscience because the long term benefits outweigh your morals. I'm not sure that this is completely that case, but it's beginning to feel that way to me.

RE: Open Source Code Meets Democracy - in Australia anyway