I simply do not think that after investing so heavily in the events culminating in the military action in Iraq, that the US would then just sit back an let events unfold as they will and just play it by ear and hope for the best, the US government just isn't that naive and short sighted. Another "France" in the Middle East is exactly what the US doesn't want, and it will utilise all it's strategic/political power to ensure that there will never be a Middle Eastern "France". The long term procurement of Iraq was the amition that underpinned the US's policies regarding Iraq. Last week James Rubin appeared on the panel of guests on "question Time" (political debate program on UK TV). Speaking on the new democracy in Iraq and the shape and form it may take, he made the following remark: "...now the irony is that now Iraq has a democracy, and its people have the right to vote in the government they choose, the majority of Shia Muslims could vote in a Government that is hostile to America..." Now the statement was made in jest, but they say much truth is spoken in jest. The US has played a major hand in the current events of Iraq. It has invested heavily politically, economically, logistically, and strategically. With the current military action being the culmination of years of strategic planning and investment on America's part, I don't think that the US would have committed themselves so heavily knowing that the outcome would mean a "democracy" being installed that would and could facilitate the election of a government hostile to themselves...no way. There's no doubt that the US went in for their own vested interests (the exact nature of which I'm sure has and will be greatly debated) and I am in no doubt that America will implement every strategy in it's power to insure that whatever Government is elected in Iraq will be Pro-American, that was the ultimate objective from day one.
Another "france" in the Middle East? Of course not. They don't want another "U.S.A." in the Middle East either. This is about power and independence. The U.S.A does not, at any cost, want a powerful and independent (of USA) Middle Eastern state. Actually they do not want any powerful and independent (of U.S.A.) state to exist anywhere in the world, including western so-called allied countries.
well this is it, hence my increasing scepticism at the notion that now the Iraqi people have duly been liberated, they are now free to elect their own democratic Government. The U.S.A does not, at any cost, want a powerful and independent (of USA) Middle Eastern state. Actually they do not want any powerful and independent (of U.S.A.) state to exist anywhere in the world, including western so-called allied countries. There's no way that the US after investing so heavily in overthrowing Saddam would then allow a situation to occour whereby an Iraqi government is elected that is Anti-American. Thats like fighting to win a prize, then letting it go. The prize was Iraq, and all the strategic benefits that it affords America, they (the US) won the prize, and they won't let go, ie: whatever Iraqi Government is elected in the future, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be extremely Pro-American. :m:
that's quite natural. the US is in iraq for the long haul. after conquering iraq, after driving out saddam, the US definitley aren't going to hand over control to the UN, read france, russia, china. many people say 'oil oil', but i don't think it's so much to do with oil as it is to do with a stabilising influence in the middle east. i think a decidedly pro-american govt. will fail in the long run. it will be overthrown by fundamentalists. i just wonder whether america has the commitment to stay in iraq for as long as it takes. it will surely require an enormous amount of money, time and effort. in the end, america has to be sure that all the money, time and energy it has devoted to iraq will bear some fruit.
The Utopia of all scenarios for the U.S. would be, somehow, if one day, Iraq would be another “Israel” (not necessarily Jewish).
I think that the very reason that a Pro-American Govt will be installed in Iraq is to Mitigate any possible affect that the fundamentalists may pose, thus negating any subversive (to America) tendancies of Iran and at the same time consolidating Israel's position in the Mid East.
...and then Syria, possibly North Korea (although I suspect that like a true bully, the US may leave those guys well alone....the Nth Koreans seem to have "balls")Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But then WITH oil . Something like Kuweit with sone extra peoples . Perhaps they could simply seperate Iraq into rich oily and poor , so that the USA can take the rich part put some sheiks on it and call it Kuweit 2 . Ow wait....Kurdistan is already gonna be Kuweit 2 . Lets not forget it is nice to have a government that wishes to do business with u with very low oil prices , something like Saudi , yes thats it , Iraw ill be the next Saudi...the Shiaa get their Sharia , USA gets their oil.......but then there's Israel....no , not working . The best thing is to just make some greater Kuweit (ofcourse oil-wise not people-wise) , and let israel deal wit whatevers left of Iraq .
and once all that's sorted out, time for another Iraq(USA)/Iran war to "sort out" the Iranian problem once and for all. Media friendly excuses (reasons for doing so)...plenty: Iran poses a threat to Iraqi(US) national stability, Saddam sold WMD to Iranian disidents,..whatever...I'm sure the Bush PR machine won't struggle to come up with some excuse. Only this time the Iraq/iran war won't be as prolonged and evenly matched as the one during the 1980's, for this time the Iraqi Military will strangely be much better equiped tan the Iranian army. Iran won't know whats hit them...it would almost be as if the Iranians were fighting America itself....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Taking care of the Iran problem may not require the use of military force. The situation in Iran is very different than what the situation in Iraq was a few weeks ago.
Re: Re: The Procurement of Iraq. A minature USA that is endebted to us would be fine. As long as the resulting democratic republic is our ally and treats their own well they can do anything they want. (provided they dont blow anything up) It would be nice to have a melting pot (like america) of societies in the middle east. Might help the area become more moderate.
Re: Re: Re: The Procurement of Iraq. .. And as long as they would support anything U.S.A. does. That's not my idea of an independent country.
A stabilizing influence makes sense only for the oil. What else could it be for? Dates & figs? It couldn’t be terrorism since Iraq wasn’t a factor in that. It seems to me the Iran problem is that the US doesn’t yet own their oil. Acquiring it will require military force. And remember Iran is building nukes right now! (As they might well be, since every small country with large natural resources now has a huge incentive to get “nuculartized”). Note the key quote within: The Bush propaganda machine is full steam ahead baby! 2005 is when I (previously) predicted Iran will fall. Give Bush time to make the ignorant half of Americans believe he’s saved the economy with tax cuts, and gives him one year after re-election to whip them into another support-the-troops frenzy. And I like this quote from here: I say it demonstrates that Bush wants the world to believe his new puppet dictatorship is a democracy. The ploy just might work too. Yeah, while Bush Co. profits from “their” oil.
While everyone profits. Them too. The whole thing about capitalist trade is both the buyer and the seller profit from any trade between the two parties. In the end the money would go into iraqi oil companies and from there into the iraqi economy. At least it wouldnt be building palaces for saddam.
