Carey Fisher - NCS wrote:

> You know, I wonder the same thing.  After thinking about it a while,
>  I think that the "democracy" part the president is referring to is that
>  the people, through elected representatives, will get to determine the
>  type of government they ultimately install whether it be a representative
>  democracy, a republic, a representative theocracy etc. I guess they
>  could even decide they're more secure under the slavery of a theocratic
>  or secular dictatorship, but at least we gave them a fighting chance.
> You can lead a horse to water...

Ahh, you know in your heart that if the people of Iraq really wanted to 
re-elect a dictator, our government would never let them.

Actually I don't see us ever leaving anyway, we're building too many 
permanent bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Look at the OMB numbers 
and see where the money's going.

That's how this Administration works.  Down to their very core -- they 
believe that the only way to win in the world is to use military might 
to get their way.  They started writing about it late in the Regan era 
and into Bush I.

(I'm not arguing for or against this, I'm just pointing out facts: 
These guy's tune has never changed since 20 years ago... Rumsfeld and 
friends all believe the same things.  There is even reference to "the 
need for a Pearl Harbor style attack in order for the American people to 
believe this strategy is the correct one" comment in a 1997 document 
written by our current Assistant Defense Secretary -- he knew 9/11 had 
to happen for his personal beliefs about the need for massive military 
power to be justified.  He said so himself.)

> And the president did say we are bringing democracy to Iraq; but he also
>  said and I believe that it's important to engage the terrorists "over
> there"
>  so as to lessen the chance of having to engage them here.  We fought
>  a similar protracted "cold war" against Soviet communism and eventually
>  won in spite of a world full of naysayers.  It's nice to have a president
> that
>  actually takes action against our enemies.

He's given a number of reasons for the war.  Whichever one is convenient 
for the occasion and time.

Watch speeches with Veterans vs speeches for Women's groups vs. speeches 
for College Kids.

They're all different reasons, and that's how politics is played in 
Washington.  Always has been, always will be.

> Not that I agree 100% with Bush.  I'm mighty pissed that our borders are
>  still wide open and that he hasn't done anything about reducing Federal
>  spending.

He can't reduce Federal spending and run a war and build a large number 
of overseas bases in unfriendly territory all at the same time.

Why did (do?) people believe he can?  That's 3rd or 4th grade 
mathematics right there.  Anyone that can balance a checkbook should get 
that one.

(Of course it frightens me that there's a large percentage of our 
population here that can NOT balance a checkbook.)

Everyone got all giddy about his "tax cuts" which amounted to about $300 
bucks back to the "average working american".  And childless American's 
got even less, although it's proven that we're more productive than 
people with children.

As one comedian from New York City, David Cross put it, "Make sure you 
vote for me if you want to buy that fancy foot massager!  The Democrats 
want to take away your foot massager!"

Bush and his insiders are about a large military -- he's always been 
about a large military.  His contemporaries for 25 years have been about 
a large military.  His father was for a large military.

Large militaries require huge amounts of money to operate.

Blather about tax cuts is just there to suck in those who can't do the 
math, because Democrats would never say those words.  Nice tactics on 
the so-called Conservative's part, but it's in no way possible and they 
know it.

Haliburton's contract for $5.6 billion in services in Iraq for next year 
was just approved last week after their review of this year's 
performance, which is typically nothing more than a formality.

I think they took my foot massager.

> And another thing...  No one brought this up yet but I'm in a mood!!!  This
>  was not a war for oil.  But, I wouldn't have a problem if it was.  Who
>  developed the oil fields in the first place?  Do you really think the
> middle
>  east oil field would be pumping like crazy if the Brits and Yanks hadn't
>  developed them prior to them being "nationalized" (stolen) by the Mid
>  East countries.  And who put out the fires Saddam set in the oil fields
> after the US and the Coalition threw Saddam out of Kuwait and liberated
> that country?

Not just the U.S., France, Germany, and Russia all have fields there.

Of course, with large multinational corporations paying the bills, who 
really knows... ?  They're really running this show anyway.

Actually if you look at where troops are actually deployed... that new 
pipeline out of Iraq through Afghanistan seems to have an unusually high 
number of armed "guard posts" owned/operated by the U.S. military along 
it.

Hint: We're really just building a pipeline and guarding it at this 
point.  The Democracy is secondary to that.

(Again, I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just stating facts on these.)

Oil is all that's there.  If it weren't we wouldn't give a shit and we'd 
let Saddam or anyone else do whatever the hell they wanted there.

Proof: Look at Africa if you don't think so.  We bailed out and came 
home without "liberating" anything.  We only "liberate" people when 
there's something there we want.

As far as the overall big-picture Middle East goes:

China's the next major power due into the theatre.  That'll be 
interesting when they finally decide they strategically MUST have a 
toe-hold there right in the Gulf.

My favorite bumper sticker idea right now:

"Turn off that SUV if you really want to Support Our Troops."

Nate

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist