I am against the stated reasons for the Iraq war; however, I am not naive enough to believe that the stated reasons have any basis is fact. We need a presence in the Middle East until such time as we no longer need oil as a strategic resource. And if you wanted one base in the Middle East, Iraq is strategically the only logical place.
<snip>
I am against the democracy fetish. It is folly to foist democracy upon a people. At best we can give them an "our SOB leader" who could serve as a possible transition to democracy- if the people embrace it.
I don't buy that arguement Peter ... We have bases in Turkey, Kuwait and Qatar and I'm sure there are other's I don't know about. If a presence is really that neceesary, it would be easier, cheaper and safer for our troops to expand the facilities in these countries to the house the troops needed. The ONLY reason Iraq can be considered a "logical" place is the quantity of oil they have and the fact those uppity ay-rabs live on top of our oil.
And on that last comment ... does that mean you're sending bush over there after he leaves office
On the last comment- that was a reference to supporting some “tin-pot-dictator,” you know he is an SOB, but at least he is our SOB.
The reason that Iraq is the perfect place for a US presence, until the end of oil’s strategic importance that is, is because it sits between the powerful Shiite state (Iran) and the powerful Sunni State (Saudi Arabia). With US forces in Iraq, particularly southern Iraq, Iran has no room to maneuver if it seeks to gain control over the Saudi oil fields. If Iran could obtain control over those oils fields they could squeeze the world.
