--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > >
> > > In a message dated 10/21/06 3:01:11 P.M. Central  Daylight 
Time, 
> > > drpetersutphen@ writes:
> > > We are in Iraq for several  reasons. One is to open the
> > > oil fields to a free market, democratically  elected
> > > and US friendly government. This is just smart
> > > politics and  planning for the future. Unfortunately it
> > > isn't working out that way for the  US. We should have
> > > listened to the state department, not the  defense
> > > department!
> > > 
> > > Naaaaa. If we wanted the oil fields of Iraq to  flow, all we 
had 
> > to do was 
> > > lift sanctions against Saddam which were about to  collapse 
> > anyway. That oil 
> > > would have sold at market prices anyway, making Saddam  even 
> > wealthier with oil 
> > > prices as they are today. The overwhelming reason we are  
there 
> > today is to 
> > > create a democracy in a region that is traditionally held by  
> > dictators or 
> > > absolute monarchies that have a reason to suppress their 
people 
> > and  keep them 
> > > ignorant and in poverty so as to be able to maintain their 
own  
> > power. This leads 
> > > to anger, hostility and hopelessness which gives rise to  
> > terrorism. When a 
> > > people can have more stake in their own future via a  
government 
> > they control 
> > > through elections they are far less likely to want  to make 
war 
> on 
> > others so they 
> > > can focus on developing their own country and thus  less 
likely 
> to 
> > get 
> > > involved in supporting terrorism. The State Department was  
all 
> > for maintaining the 
> > > status quo which would only perpetuated the current  state in 
> the 
> > middle east.
> > >
> > Gee, what an enlightened outlook all of a sudden from the US who 
> had 
> > no problem currently or previously supporting Mubarak in Egypt- 
> > military dictatorship, The House of Saud- oligargical 
> dictatorship, 
> > Shah of Iran- dictatorship, and Saddam in Iraq- dictatorship. Ah 
> > yes, the freedom we yearn for in the Middle East! Alarming 
naivete.
> > 
> > The only thing we want in Iraq is a puppet government that gives 
> us 
> > reliable access to Iraqi oil, without creating waves in the 
Middle 
> > East. A stable dictatorship would be just fine with Cheney/Bush.
> >
> 
> If the choice in American foreign policy through the years was to 
> only support those countries that had democracies and supported 
> human rights, then the only country the US would have had 
relations 
> with would have been Canada...and even that would be debatable.
>
I agree. I am not saying that the US should only support 
democracies, only that this empty excuse not continue to be trotted 
out for our invasion of Iraq. We sought to make Iraq a defacto 
colony, not a democracy.




To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to