August 22, 2005


from - Buck

The United States yesterday finally abandoned the fading dream of turning Iraq into a beacon of secular democracy in the Middle East, as it backed demands for the new constitution to enshrine Islamic religious law.

Like I have said before. The National Socialists Peoples Republic of Islamic Theocracy.

I guess we can add freedom and democracy to the list of things that this war is not about.

And since the United States taxpayer loses $1.50 everytime a gallon of gas is sold in Iraq even I sometimes wonder if it is a war for oil. Maybe it was a war for the people who sell oil.

That is all that makes sense at this point.


Posted by Buck at August 22, 2005 03:00 PM

"Maybe it was a war for the people who sell oil."

You're getting warmer. Try "Maybe it was a war for the people who sell equipment and services to people who sell oil."

But I'm just speculating, too, as it's really difficult to figure out.

univar.jpg Posted by joe on August 22, 2005 03:56 PM
Link to comment

I think that having a strong, reliable Muslim ally in the Middle East area was an important issue, not just oil. The US wanted a presence in the region that was not Israel. Its current allies have problems of their own: Saudi Arabia is not reliable, Egypt is shaky and who knows what will happen when Mubarak dies, and Jordan is weak. However the situation inside Iraq is not developing according to the Neocons' plans: the Kurds are allies of the US, but their influence is restricted. We'll see if the Iraqi Shia will be cooperative or will turn radical when they assume full control of the South. The Sunnis feel defeated and angry. The strategical move of invading the country to have military bases and friends there may turn sour.

univar.jpg Posted by Jaume on August 22, 2005 04:37 PM
Link to comment

I spend too much of my time mired in cynicism. I know that. It is a character flaw that I try to work on.

It is true that we need allies in the Middle East. We need allies everywhere. The best way to make a friend is to be a friend.

Wasn't Saddam our man in Iraq for 30 years? Didn't the CIA basically put him in the position that he held for years? Are we not doing the same thing now just less covertly?

When we say that Israel is our friend, exactly what does that mean? Does that mean that they will put our best interest ahead of their own? Is that what it should mean?

I wish I could believe that the motives behind going into Iraq were pure. I wish I could believe that the Administration was concerned about human rights and freedom and liberty.

Someday I hope to be able to say, in the spirit of Winston Smith, I LOVE BIG BROTHER

I am just not there yet.

univar.jpg Posted by Buck on August 23, 2005 09:29 AM
Link to comment

No, of course it was not about democracy and human rights. It was more like a gambit in chess, you eliminate one of your own pieces that bothers you in order to get a better position on the board. The problem was that the Iraqis were expected to cheer on the streets, and they didn't (or it lasted just one day).

univar.jpg Posted by Jaume on August 23, 2005 04:53 PM
Link to comment
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.