Jeffrey Miller wrote: > >When we announce that a big part of our military plan is to seize and >control oil fields for the next 5-10 years, and to let the country >evolve its own leadership for the next 2-4 years,
So you're saying the US intends to retain total control of the Iraqi oil fields for up to 8 years beyond when a new Iraqi government has been formed? I don't buy this at all - can you link to any reasonable source that shows this as a stated goal? As I understand it, the goal is to "sieze and control" the *entire country* (ie: not just the oil fields), long enough to depose Saddam, put an end to the WMD research/acquisition, and put a self-ruling democratic Iraqi government in place. >when one of our strategic goals is the destabilization of Saudi Arabia, Destabilization of Saudi Arabia? When has anyone in the govenerment stated this? Destabilization is the last thing I think we'd want in Saudi. While I think many would like to see Saudi become a democracy, the general tone I always hear from the administration is that Saudi Arabia is considered a good friend/ally. Again, can you point to any links showing the administration stating Saudi destabilization as a goal? >when the only reason we care about these otherwise resource poor countries >is the oil fields.. how is that /not/ about oil at its very core? Have you forgotten the whole disarmament/weapons of mass destruction thing? Iraq training al-Qaeda agents on chemical weapons development? Is that not a concern? Do you think the US doesn't have other interests/motivations besides oil? Is the US incapable of doing anything humanitarian? How oil-rich were Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia? If the US is so hot for Iraq's oil: 1) We could just remove the sanctions against Iraq, and they'd be glad to sell the US all the oil we want. It'd be far cheaper to do that than the hundred billion plus we'll have to spend on regime change. 2) We could just have rolled on to Bagdad and easily taken it in 1991. We could also have retained control of Kuwait or put in a puppet government there instead of handing it back to Kuwait's king. Seriously, all the "the US just wants the oil" rhetoric I'm seeing is *identical* to what the anti-war protesters were saying before Desert Storm. My school was full of protests with "no blood for oil" signs and claims that the US's goal was to annex Iraq. The reality was that the US did what it said it would do and got out. Isn't that at least one fairly convincing piece of evidence the US would keep its word this time around as well? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
