flynn23 wrote:
] 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.

I think you have an interesting take on the situation. Zbigniew Brzezinski (Counselor-in-residence at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; trustee of the Trilateral Commission; national security adviser to President Carter and member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; 1981 recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom; former faculty member at Columbia and Harvard universities; Ph.D., government, Harvard University) recently wrote The Grand Chessboard, in which he explains that control of central Asia is key to control of the world. The control of oil is very strategic: even if the US used moonbeams and flower pollen for energy, global control hinges on the ability to block other nations' access to oil. Hence Europe's opposition - they don't want to get cut out.

Oil isn't the only resource. Heroin is another valuable regional resource (note that the Taliban put a halt to poppy growing in 2001; now that the US has asserted control, poppy production has rebounded to former levels), and the geographic position of the central Asian region is also strategically valuable.
The memos and documents in which American planners discuss 'our' strategic interests are quite plain: to maintain our dominance and prevent challenges to our dominance by any means necessary, without regard for 'utopian notions of human rights or fair play'.

I agree with you that it is not as simple as oil, or money, but it is also not so simple as 'fighting terrorism'. After all, Saddam was 'our kind of guy' for a long time, right through the time he was gassing the Kurds. That's not of concern to the US. In fact, if you look at a list of who gets US foreign military aid, you might confuse it with the list of the worst human rights abusing countries. (Human rights is sort of a euphemism. It means cutting women open from the vagina up, like a fish, putting peoples' heads in vices, machine-gunning children, that sort of thing. It's hideous, very well documented, and generally supported by the US.) Abuses are fine, and they provide an excellent pretext for war if turning on our vassal is the most expedient course of action to further the overall strategic goal. That's why we'll spend more money on this war than the oil in Iraq is even worth (so I've heard - let me know if I'm wrong). The main point is control. If the US was concerned with stopping terrorism, it would stop funding and creating terrorists. It would be really, really easy to support democracy and self-reliance instead of dictators...is it just a mistake that the US does not?

RE: Open Source Code Meets Democracy - in Australia anyway