One word . . . . OIL

If you believe it has anything to do with oil . . .  as in the second largest known reserves in the world, you might read: Armed Madhouse, by Greg Palast.  For a historical look at our, the U. S.'s pursuit of regime changes, etc. over a century, I recommend Overthrow, by Stephen Kinzer.

Not suprisingly, corporate influence was behind many of our previous invasions or takovers, overt and covert.  If this is NOT true in Iraq, why did Cheney's energy group have maps of Iraqi oil fields with them, all before the war?  Dividing up the rights to the fields?  Become a member of OPEC by proxy? (by controlling Iraq's production, not necessarily to "take" the oil).

I think the admin. has no plan to leave, because the plan is NOT TO LEAVE.  And W does not want failure on his legacy, altho I think something like it will be there (incompetence maybe at least, like Harding; or that plus corruption like Harding or Grant), and he has been listening to Cheney and Kissinger (and even the K is changing course).  If W listened to Powell and the generals way back, or his father (who stated long ago why he did NOT go to Baghdad), all this could have been avoided. 

You are correct in recalling that W said at first it was WMD, then all the admin. talked about mushroom clouds, numerous references to 9-11, then regime change, Saddam is a bad guy, oops wait, we want Democracy there (while suppressing voting rights here, not very Democratic, there's more, but...).

What now?  We all have ideas, I posted mine a while ago, about a division of the "country."  I also wonder what the buffer countries around Iraq would be willing to do for peace -- send in Arabic troops to separate the groups now killing each other in increasingly larger numbers and with increasingly worse brutality?  If Saudi has such influence and interest, where is there offer of troops and cash to calm the country down?  Didn't we, and a real coalition, save them from Saddam years ago?  Come to think of it, where is the Kuwaiti army?  Is there one?  Do Americans have to do their dirty work for them, again?  Going on the rant ramp a bit here . . .

But let's keep the pressure on that this is Bush's War.  He is the Decider, as he said.  We can't let  him and his cabal like Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Chalabi, etc. get off easily by challenging the Dems or others to fix their mistakes. 

I fear it is lose-lose now, no matter who does what.  It is the Bush/Bandar legacy to the world.  We might have only a choice of the least of numerous evils.  Write on.

--KZ

Bush stated clearly that Iraq needed regime change. Do a little research on his speeches in the 14 months leading up to the Congressional resolution authorizing military force.

Bush has stated repeatedly that we will leave Iraq when it is free, stable, not a threat to its neighbors and able to defend itself. There is no evidence to support the notion that the US intends to stay after these goals have been achieved. Lots of rhetoric, no evidence. This leads to the question as to why the Sadrs and the jihadis won't give peace a chance, easier to pick up an AK or suicide vest than to campaign for office.

Oil, is another left-wing, fever swamp, world conspiracy theory. The US could have bought oil from Saddam, either directly or indirectly, like numerous other countries. It would be expected that Cheney's energy task force would obtain maps of the world's oil reserves. They would be used as part of the supply-side planning process.   

one word . . . OIL

"Except for the huge permanent military bases that we are building in Iraq.  Except for the new US embassy in Iraq that is larger than the Vatican. "

What makes the bases permanent? Extensive facilitys don't mean permanence The US built and abandoned bases in Subic bay for example.

Having an embassy, even a large one, is not an indication of one country's intent to occupy another. The US would like to have diplomatic relations with Iraq, for that you need an embassy. There are many embassies in the DC area, does that mean those countries intend to occupy the US?

As for purchasing oil from Saddam, the US could easily have gotten the UN to lift the sanctions. Weren't the Ted Rall and Noam Chompsky types fulminating against the sanctions, blaming the US for killing 1 million Iraqi children?   

Lets see what this "action" in Iraq HAS caused first...shall we. 

First of all, it has cost many lives and losts of money.  It seems that while Mr. Bush's children play in Argentina, under the "watchful eye" of the secret service at taxpayer expense, Mr. Bush, to protect his fragile ego and his tainted legacy send our children off to be killed, maimed, and God knows what else happens to them in thier minds.

Secondly, not until AFTER the invasion of Iraq, was there any alQuieda (or the like) agents there.  We can not link Iraq, even in the slightest to the Septembre 11, 2001 tragedy.  Yes, Saddam was evil, but regime change in Iraq was not given for a reason to invade Iraq.  Of course, those who do not want to fact the truth will act as if Americans were lead to belive that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and THAT is why there was support for this war in the first place. Remember "mushroom cloud'?

If the purpose was regime change, that was accomplished in very quick order. (I must mention again that regime change was not the reason given to the American people to invade Iraq)  The Bath'ists were toppled, thier leaders brought before the Iraqi courts, tried and will be handed justice.  If it was "democracy", the Iraqis had elections, adopted a constitution amonst themselves.  Now, it is up to the Iraqis, given this chance to make it work.  We should not see our men and women policing thier streets, and kicking in the doors of civilian homes.  This is more akin to an occupation. 

If the purpose was to "bring freedom and stability, is not a threat to it's neighbours (read the "political Israel" here) with the ability to defend itself", it seems a political, rather than a military solution would have been the course to take.  Instead of having our military patroling thier streets, our politicians should be be helping them negotiate in the world that they (the Iraqis) live in. It might be wiser that our military only train thier militia, and send them, fully equipped into thier own streets. If a civilian door needs to be kicked in, let them do it.  We (the American military presense) keeps the Iraqis from taking on thier own factional problems.  The government of Iraq...the people the Iraqis elected to guide them to a stable path must get out into the streets and meet the people face to face.  They must deal with the problems, as bad as they are.

Unfortunatly...this is the truth.

Peace Be Unto You

Zanubiyah