Some hypothetical country
Let's say there's this landlocked country in Africa that has an evil dictator torturing and murdering anyone suspected of supporting the opposition party. The dictator has now decided to obtain nuclear material and has intimate ties to North Korea and Iran (2 out of 3 in the axis of evil). For the sake of this post lets call this country Ziwali.
Every knows the leader of Ziwali is corrupt, he sanctions rape camps and brainwashes his country's youth. The foreign media has reported the plight of the citizens of Ziwali but the country has been largely ignored by international bodies like the United Nations.
The United States now claims the reason for their attack on Iraq was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people from tyranny, the same tyranny the people of Ziwail must face each day. Why doesn't the United States liberate the people of Ziwal?
Every knows the leader of Ziwali is corrupt, he sanctions rape camps and brainwashes his country's youth. The foreign media has reported the plight of the citizens of Ziwali but the country has been largely ignored by international bodies like the United Nations.
The United States now claims the reason for their attack on Iraq was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people from tyranny, the same tyranny the people of Ziwail must face each day. Why doesn't the United States liberate the people of Ziwal?
posted by mochi at 12:09 AM
15 Comments:
We all know the real reason. How much oil does Ziwali have?
No matter many different ways they spin it, no matter how much effort they put into rationalizing it and propagandizing it, the war in Iraq would not be happening if it were not for the oil, period. That's why we went there, and that is why we will stay there. Permanently.
We won't go anywhere that bush doesn't have a personal interest in. I'm still convinced that not only are we there for oil but bush #2 had a personal vendetta against saddaam for bush #1.
Mochi,
The reason for going into Iraq was not to liberate Iraq. This came about through the media campaign after the troops were in Iraq. You need to read the Congressional resolution, not the media.
-Jack
Many supporters of the war consider the oil argument a conspiracy theory, and I truly understand that point of view - it seems unimaginable that our country could be so self serving and cruel.
But in all seriousness and soberness, no one (and I address this specifically to Sean, Jack, and the new guy) can reasonably argue that the United States would have invaded Iraq if we did not have significant private financial interests in the region.
I'm not even suggesting, necessarily, that it's a bad thing to brutally defend private interests, I'm simply saying anyone who thinks that it isn't/wasn't a primary motivator is deluding themselves.
Smorg,
Just a question- What private interests did we have in Iraq?
-Jack
The no bid contract Halliburton procured is just the tip of the iceberg. US corporations have or stand to reap billions of dollars from this war.
Again, I'm not necessarily making a judgment one way or another, I'm just saying...
Ok, I was just wondering. I think the reason Haliburton was no-bid is because they are the only company in the United States that does what they do. There was no one to bid against them was there?
I do agree though, that if commerce opens up, and Iraq becomes a nation who trades in oil (no sanctions) then business will benefit.
-Jack
That was my understanding of the Halliburton contract. If you have one company that can perform the tasks you need, do you really need to send the job out for bids?
I think the "private interests" theory is weak. A better argument is the economic argument that our economy runs on oil, and if we allowed Hussein to destabilize the region he could severely impact our economy. Of course, that in itself would be a legitimate reason to go to war - one country trying to actually destroy another through economic terrorism.
Of course, the real reason we went is that we were afraid, and believed, that Iraq had WMD's that could be given to the same type of people that blew up the WTC towers and part of the Pentagon.
My answer to your hypothetical is this: If Ziwali truly institutes a nuclear arms program that could be used against us, then I believe we will attack. It might be limited to destroying the nuclear capabilities given the current climate of unwillingness to liberate oppressed peoples under any rationale, however.
It's not true that Halliburton is the only company on Earth that does what they do. There was an episode of, I believe, 60 Minutes dedicated to it when the contract was first announced. The show interviewed several other companies that could have done the job for far less.
This is sort of an aside from the topic of corporate interests in general, but the reason we offered Halliburton a no bid contract (and again this NOT a conspiracy theory in any way) is that Cheney wanted to pad the pockets of his cronies. That's the long and the short of it.
Could be, Smorg. I have a hard time getting too upset by this kind of thing because I would have stayed upset for the last 50 years. Cronyism, nepotism--realities of life. We are usually only upset with it when it is convenient for our us.
-Jack
True enough that this type of sh!t has been going on forever, but I'm not aware of any administration that has participated as proudly and unashamedly as Bush's. It's evidence of their utter contempt for people outside their circle, i.e. anyone who's not filthy rich.
I would never say, though, that such was ok, Smorg. When it comes to morality I am no relativist.
-Jack
Jack asked, "What private interests did we have in Iraq?" Try this.
Cheney was rich before the war. I guess in a liberals mind the motives for war are always related to profit. Facts I can discuss, but, Shea, beliefs are something no one can refute.
I guess at this point I have a question of relevence. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
-Jack
The primary motive for war is almost always profit. There is ALWAYS one of two driving factors that are at the forefront of EVERY war: religion or profit (often both).
The revolutionary war would not have happened if it was not for England's greed and the colonists' refusal to be taxed unfairly. The civil war would not have happened if the south didn't foresee a substantial financial advantage to forming the confederacy... etc, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home