Sorry, I just bristle when I read stuff like this - which is where the discussion began:
>>My hubby's proposal for why we might be planning to go bigtime into Iraq is that, if we were successful, it would allow us to create a de facto protectorate in Iraq run by handpicked political compradors (a new word to me), like Hamid Karzai and his friends in Afghanistan (who are mostly ex-employees or consultants to Unocal.) In this scenario, the US would supply all the major ground forces (the US supplying 250,000 is already being floated by the pentagon), which would allow us to accord only the most minimal role to the Shiia and the Kurds with all the difficulties they present. The happy result would be 1) command of Iraqi oil resources and 2) (and possibly even more important), it would allow our infidel military to be withdrawn from the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia, which presence is possibly the bitterest obstacle to any improvement in US/Muslim relations.
(This scenario also would explain the manifest lack of interest on the part of the US in acquiring significant allied support in Europe for a war and occupation effort. If we do it alone, we get it all.)<<
Message 17209197
In other words, we WANT to attack Iraq so we can get all their oil, goody goody, and we WANT a base there to protect us while we steal Iraq's oil, and extend US hegemony to make the world safe for Unocal, and, by the way, apparently the person who thinks this ALSO thinks it will be more acceptable to the rest of the Muslim world than having a base in Saudi.
The state of armchair punditry in this country is going to the dogs. -ng- |
