eldar1011

Regarding oil and Iraq, I've always thought that oil was the most important factor in the West's relationship with the Middle East. I think it's a bit naive to think that oil had *nothing* to do with the war in Iraq.

If it weren't for oil, the Middle East would be Africa as far as Western foreign policy is concerned.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Let's see, how many were massacred just recently in the Congo? And we did WHAT exactly? Oh, nothing. People are starving under a psychotic despot who ruined the economy of a nation and threatens the world openly with nulcear obliberation (N Korea)? The fact that Afghaninistan is falling back to what it was year before last, minus the Taliban's control over certain areas? China?

I can think of a lot of prior commitments and more dire situations to get ourselves into and do more good.

Edited to add:

Mass graves? I seem to recall a lot of those in the US, something about a bit of bilogical warfare via smallpox. Maybe those people on the reservations (bits of crappy land we forced them onto) could tell a bit more.

eldar1011

As I understand it, the recent book "The Clinton Wars" by Sidney Blumenthal is an accurate account of the impeachment of Clinton. Even the most strident conservative opponents to Clinton admit that the book gets the history right.

I plan on reading the book and I recommend it to you. From what I've heard, the impeachment had nothing to do with perjury and everything to do with an attempt to remove a Democratic president from office.

As far as giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, just as he wasted all the international goodwill towards the US generated by the tragedy of 9/11, he's wasted any slack I was willing to cut him.

Do I think he lied? Kinda hard to say, if you look at the rhetoric leading up to the war, it's just vague enough....filled with just enough "weasel" words....to make it difficult to nail him on outright lies. But, I do believe that the Administration undoubtedly exaggerated the imminent nature of the Iraqi WMD threat.

auto-da-fe

Good point eldar. It may be extremely difficult to catch him in an outright lie. Especially when Rummy and Powell may be willing to take the fall for him.

Any thoughts on that?

eldar1011

I doubt it'll reach as high as Rummy and Powell, it might be Wolfowitz...especially if you consider all the bad press he's been getting lately.

But, in the end, I doubt any heads will roll. At best (depending on your perspective), they'll blame it on an intelligence favor. Most likely, it'll simply be ammunition used by both sides during the upcoming Presidential campaign.

Enai

Me, I would not have supported Saddam's rise to power. And, by the way, I wouldn't have supported the Shah and Pinochet and Noriega and... you get the picture.

Oh, and lest I forget: I would not have founded the School Of Americas.

Enai

auto-da-fe

Very easy to say Enai, but I think that would mean that you would also have to be able to tell the future. When we supported SH he was the least of all Evils. We had no idea what he was going to turn out like. And I don't think any country in the world can claim that everything that they have ever supported turned out exactly like it was supposed to with no surprises.

Enai

Your question was what I would do in the past with the knowledge I have now. And I don't believe SH was "the least of all evils". There was a democratic government in Iraq before him, just like in the cases on Pinochet in Chile and the Shah in Iran. I challenge you to support your idea that Mr. Hussein was better than all alternatives.

Enai

Grad Student Humanist

If the US wouldn't support any dictatorships-- I know that's a radical concept, actually support democracies in practice instead of in theory-- then it wouldn't have to worry about their puppet dictators "turning bad."

Of course it was no secret to anyone in Iraq that Hussein was a murderous bastard since the first day he came into power, but since when has that mattered to the US anyway.

auto-da-fe

My apologies Enai, I almost forgot that I said with the knowledge now known. So based on that, my post was incorrect. Sorry about that.


As far as showing demonstrable proof that SH was the least of all evils, well, that first is a matter of perspective. Secondly, I am not aware of EVERY alternative to SH when we chose to (briefly) support him, so I may not be able to show you proof as you have asked, but then again, it would logically follow that we are going to support the person who best serves our interest at the time and the place in quesiton.

As far as our choices in other parts of the world, let me pose you the question of what country has not done this? What country has not chosen a side in a given debate and not been bit in the ass by their decision? Why does everyone insist on harping on the US's choices, while not owning up to their own?

(I could be wrong though, I am not all knowing or anything, this has just been my observed opinion)