For some reason I couldn't post this under the original "Response to my critics" post. So I'll put it here.
Paulie, the U.S. has been selling arms to Saudi Arabia for decades, as a sort of quid pro for its support of Israel. Especially post Gulf War, Saudi Arabia has by far the strongest army in the region, save of course for Israel. Syria would be third (behind SA and Israel). Has Bush ever seriously said different? I don't think so. Iraq has been the historical leader? Iraq didn't exist until Great Britain created it after WW1. Turkey ran the area before the Brits got hold of it. When Arabs speak of the region, they speak of "Greater Syria"--not "Greater Iraq." (Which isn't to say that Mesopotamia doesn't have vast historical significance; but it's generally ancient, not modern.)
So the neocons got to looking at the map of the middle east, mulling a ripe target for invasion and occupation, solely for the purpose of attacking "Islamo-fascism" (which sounds like a Limbaughism)? And they chose Iraq, with no consideration of its oil reserves?
First, if they believed their rhetoric about democracy, they would have earnestly pitched this (rather mad) plan to the public. Instead, they trumped up a bunch of garbage about WMD.
Second, Cheney should, then, have nothing to hide. I suppose the vice president, presumably when he gets done haranging John McCain to let the CIA torture people, will come clean about his Energy Task Force. What? Is energy policy somehow to take place outside of the political process? Will Alito and Roberts find that idea tucked into the Constitution, the idea that energy policy is to be left to industry players? Now, I'm not one to throw around the phrase "fascist," which arose from a specific set of historical conditions and is drained of meaning when it gets bandied about by shock-jock radio hosts, but there are fascist overtones to mobilizing a nation to war under false pretenses, while the real decisions get made behind locked doors among captains of industry.
Maybe you're right; maybe the administration brought us into war based on your assumptions (many of which have never been publicly uttered by any official). I would say, after the brilliantly planned "Shock and Awe" invasion, followed by the inept and unhappy occupation, the burden is on Cheney to show that oil interests weren't the controlling factor. The country is shattered; the security situation is a wreck. The oil contracts are safe though. Let's see the minutes to those meetings.
As for those nations that opposed the war and their profit considerations, sure, they would have made out better if there had been no war. But was it their only reason for opposing the war? When war became imminent--when it became clear that "Shock and Awe" was coming no matter what Hans Blix and the UN said--why didn't they cut a deal with the US that would have ensured them post-war contracts? US diplomats indeed offered France and Germany just such a last-minute deal; they declined. Why? I don't know enough about their internal politics to say. After the 20th century calamities of Europe, might their citizens get nervous when empires begin acting like empires. Hell, the war was even more unpopular in Germany and France than it was in the US. Maybe the governments of those countries were actually listening to their publics? Surrender monkeys, indeed. Democracy is for cheese-eating, wine-sipping Frenchies who don't know when it's time to lower the hammer.
(The Hoover hack I referred to was the fellow who penned the dumb sentence I skewered a while back.)
3 comments:
"Iraq didn't exist until Great Britain created it after WW1. Turkey ran the area before the Brits got hold of it. When Arabs speak of the region, they speak of "Greater Syria"--not "Greater Iraq." (Which isn't to say that Mesopotamia doesn't have vast historical significance; but it's generally ancient, not modern.)"
OK, well now you're arguing against the actual case for invading Iraq.
Although Iraq as a modern entity is new, I am am indeed refering to Mesopotamia, which has special resonance with the muslims who are murderously retarded. Included in this special significance is the homeland of Aberaham, Ur.
The Turks are not Arabian, so they can't count in this reasoning. Syria certainly does, and I'm surprised to learn of this concept of "Greater Syria". That country certainly supports terror, but I don't think as ostentaciously as did Hussein. It may even be violating UN sanctions, but nothing like the Hussein situation, with its no-fly zone and 10-year refusal to comply with weapons inspectors.
"Paulie, the U.S. has been selling arms to Saudi Arabia for decades, as a sort of quid pro for its support of Israel. Especially post Gulf War, Saudi Arabia has by far the strongest army in the region, save of course for Israel. Syria would be third (behind SA and Israel)."
SA might have the most advanced air force, but surely it doesn't have a huge army capable of invasion. I believe SA's in more of a position to defend itself from invasion, than it is to invade. I believe that no nations in the region fear an SA invasion. But at least we're debating what I consider to be the real rationale.
I'm unaware of your conclusion that Syria has a more impressive military force than 2001 Iraq. But I don't doubt you. However, if the US had invaded Iraq, I think that everybody else in the region would have been much more nervous about what Hussein would do next (and less impressed with the invasion accomplishment), than having invaded Iraq, the nervousness about Syria's response. Then there are the other factors, such as having a pretext for invasion, relatively recent invasions of other countries (the Syrian invasion of Lebonon being less dramatic than the Hussein invasions of Iran and Kuwait), and the more outlandish public support for anti-Isreali terror.
Tom: Do you know what a "hack" is? I assure you that it doesn't mean, "somebody who disagrees with Tom."
Post a Comment