The regime change is not necessarily required. The regime certainly need to reform and that doesn't need to happen by force, like we did in Iraq.
Well if you buy into the freedom idea, it is required. The regime in Saudi takes more of the oil revenues than their % proportion of the general population, and they are all one family as opposed to the most deserving group of people. That's fundamentally wrong, if you buy into the idea of "all men created equal", etc.
Also, autocratic, non-representative regimes only reform in order to hang onto power, they don't do so (in general) because its good for their population. Therefore, they should be given a chance to reform, and if they fail to do so in a reasonable time period should be forcibly removed.
we have been trying (to instigate revolution in Iran) for years now (covertly) and haven't succeeded.
I don't think we've been trying that hard. If $10 billion were spent on it, and it was declared as the US's public policy, I would agree. But I don't think the US effort to instigate revolution in Iran is too strong at the moment.
I doubt a better management (of post combat operations in Iraq) then would have helped much
There are thousands of US military personel who's job it is to manage that type of thing. You don't think they have any capability to do a better job than the current adminstration did?? I can list numerous things that a seem common sense to a non-expert like myself (seal the borders, institute a curfew, curb anti-coalition media, have more than 10 frickin' Arab speakers in the coalition, etc., etc.). None of these were done, and the process seems to have been seat of your pants, what shall we do now execution.
If you think George's handling of the post major combat situation in Iraq was the best the US can possibly do, then your estimation of the US's ability is much, much too low.
This is 'mostly' about "economy" is my thinking. Oil is just a means this administration thinks of, as a way to get there. I dont buy into this grand vision of freedom throughout the world vision at all. It doesn't matter who pushes this vision, I cant see it succeeding very much. Freedom is a lower priority than food and shelter and other basic necessities for a large percentage of the people of the world. A lot of people would and do give their freedom away to get some basis necessities met first. Just look at the number of workers in the middle east from the free countries (Indians, Bangladeshis, etc).
This is nonsense. Are you European? The "Iraq war is all about oil" idea is the stupidest thing I have heard from more people than I can believe, mainly the Europeans.
If the Iraq war was primarily about oil, Saudi still makes infinitely more sense than Iraq!
I believe that food, shelter and freedom are natural desires of every person on the planet, probably in that order. Just because some people give away their freedom for food (hookers come to mind), doesn't mean they don't want their freedom.
elroy |
