From a recent New York Times article entitled "Democrats Flexible on Iraq Exit":
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
Our top three liberals sure are all over the map on this one, eh? Talk about hive mentality. The problem with the "well, we have to stay to prevent genocide" meme is that the genocide has started, and the U.S. military is not getting involved. The number of areas controlled by the United States is quite small compared to those ruled by local militias and death squads. "In case" of a genocide? What do you call it when roving bands of murderers demand to see people's I.D. cards, and then execute them if they have the wrong kind of name? And just what is going on when these gangs of armed thugs are often government police forces?
It is obvious by now that Bush ordered the toppling of a violent despot in order to install in his place a government that routinely uses torture and murder to punish its political enemies. The difference is that this corrupt government has allowed the privatization of Iraq's vast oil wealth, and has raised no objections to denominating said wealth in dollars instead of euros. The carnage we see on the news each day and the current parliamentary strife between Sunni and Shia political factions are two peaks of an iceberg visible above the surface; if we could see underwater it would be obvious that they are, in actuality, one and the same.
In light of this, the absurdity of the statements made by the Democratic candidates is patently obvious, and the real reasons that the United States is staying in Iraq begin to take shape. The only way we can retain control of the oil and maintain Iraq as our permanent middle eastern stronghold is for the al-Maliki government to stay in power, even if that grip on power is a precarious one (as it certainly is right now.) In our national debate about Iraq, oil is the elephant in the room. The mainstream media treats those who cite oil as the reason for the invasion like naive children: oh they just don't get it, it's much more complicated than that. Well it isn't. Would we have invaded Iraq if its national export was asparagus?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Again, nothing will change on this no matter who goes in as President. We have no business in Iraq. We had no reason to go in. Every excuse and agenda that had been given as our reason for invading has been refuted, debunked, then later denied that it was a reason. Now every one sees that 'thars gold in them thar hills" and what's a few thousand lives for a few billion dollars? That has pretty much been the driving force of U.S. politics since at least Kennedy.
Canada is looking better and better.
Good points, Max. But all this talk of leaving Iraq makes me laugh! As if it's really an option. The reality is that those 14 military bases in Iraq and plenty more throughout the Middle East are gonna get built. Follow the money. What about all the private contractors, mercenaries, soldiers of fortune stationed there? They're not going anywhere anytime soon no matter what the official public policy of the U.S. is or becomes.
Anyone who thinks this isn't about the oil is either naive or a liar. As Serge just said, this invasion of a sovereign nation was never about democracy or freedom -- except the freedom for multinational companies to make obscene amounts of money on the backs of a lot of dead soldiers. Greed is our national sickness, with no cure in sight. Perpetual war to protect our national "interests" is on the horizon, and the way I see it, whoever the next President is will be beholden to the same set of corporate and military masters as the present regime, with only the slightest bit of wiggle room. Any pol who deviates from a certain script will likely find a bullet with his name on it waiting for him. This thing is bigger than any one party, or any one politician. Sad but true and a sorry state of affairs.
Righto, which is why as you said before it sure would be nice if the 9-11 hijinks were revealed to the public--it might be the only thing that could affect Real Change.
But then, I'm not all that sure that the majority are even wired to accept truth. Anything real just bounces around inside of empty space, with nothing to connect to. Okay, I better stop typing now. I'm getting depressed...
you wrote:
"The carnage we see on the news each day and the current parliamentary strife between Sunni and Shia political factions are two peaks of an iceberg visible above the surface; if we could see underwater it would be obvious that they are, in actuality, one and the same."
Amen. And the third peak to the north as well with the Kurds. The lines in the sand drawn by the British after WWI made a "nation" of all these people. Right.
Sorry I missed the Agnew question...I would have voted for the effete corps!
Hey Glen, thanks for checking in. Anyone who digs Dolphy is okay by me! :)
Ron Paul for President "The Hope for America"
Some of you sound petty upset. You know what always turns my frown up side down? Shopping! So don't spend another minute discussing who's to blame for countless deaths. Go out and buy those expensive items you've been wanting. No money? No problem! Use credit so you don't have to worry about it for 9 interest free months. With all this new stuff, you're sure to find that thought-free euphoria we're all in search of.
Remember: Why question authority when you could be Shopping!
Yeah, you're right I For One Trust the Government. I'm gonna go out tomorrow and purchase a set of Harry Hamlin coasters. Then I'm going to open a bunch of drinks at once.
Post a Comment