<Wolfowitz has wanted to liberate the Iraqi people for over ten years.
He thinks, and I agree, that if only we'd finished the job we started, the world would be a better place.>
CB, ever since before Iraq invaded Kuwait, I was puzzled by a few things which make sense if we think of the price of oil, and who gets the money, and don't make sense to me otherwise.
For example, USA ambassadors don't mistakenly say to Saddam "We have no position on what happens between you and Kuwait". They check with HQ. Just as Kissinger didn't mistakenly fly out of Indonesia the day before they invaded East Timor and murdered untold locals without giving a by-your-leave.
Saddam made the mistake of invading, thinking he had a green light, which actually makes sense to me as the oil should be shared among a lot more people than just a in Kuwait, which only became a country because of arbitrary British lines in the sand.
But really I think We the Sheeple should own the oil since the UN/British/USA set the place up, including Israel, after the Ottomans and Nazis were defeated. The oil should fund some NUN civilization, at least in the region, if not world-wide.
Then, when Saddam had taken over Kuwait and was told to clear out, he asked whether sanctions would be lifted if he agreed to do so. Which struck me as odd. Of course sanctions would be lifted thought silly me. But Saddam is not as stupid as me and he knew that sanctions served a purpose much more important than freeing Kuwait. They served to keep oil prices high, keep the Saudis as the dominant suppliers [and the Saudis were buddies of Bush and a lot of USA "interests".
Sure enough, when he was booted out, sanctions were NOT lifted and we all started panicking about Weapons of Mass Destruction, which were really nothing more than any number of other countries could get their hands on. Napalm or gas or noocular bombs are all the same as far as dead children are concerned. So Saddam used gas on Kurd rebellions - big deal. The USA used noocular bombs on Japanese rebellions. Now THERE's some weaponry of mass destruction.
As Norman Schwarzkopf wikipedia.org said, there's no nice way to kill people.
Sanctions were not lifted and still have not been lifted [this time by the locals who want to stop the USA exporting the oil]. Meanwhile, BP Oil and Exxon and other oil company and energy company producer profits have been fantastic.
I know you, and USA voters in general, like cheap fuel prices for your SUVs. But there's a principle called concentrated benefits and diffuse costs in democratic politics. A lot of people will tolerate a small penalty and it's worth it to concentrate those costs into a benefit for some key political supporters. That applies to fuel prices.
Cheaper fuel prices don't get that many votes, not to mention financial support, from the people who matter. Big profits for Big Oil is a good idea for King George II, not to mention King George I with his New World Order. Enron, Halliburton, thecarlylegroup.com and others have been friends of King George II and I.
There's no need for big conspiracy theories for this to be true. People notoriously act in ways which benefit themselves, even if they are trying to be objective and unbiased. That's where the word recuse comes in. It's human nature. Add the baser side of human nature and it's no stretch of the imagination to see that the amount of money involved in oil could skew a few idealistic utopian ideas based purely on ethical principles.
Mqurice |
