[CLUE-Talk] More reasons why the War is about greed / oil / capitalism

[Randy Arabie]

On Tuesday,  1 April 2003 at 19:02:16 -0700, Jeffery Cann <fabian at jefferycann.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 April 2003 09:39 am, Randy Arabie wrote:
> 
> > There are many who question the effectiveness of the UN.  It certainly
> > doesn't represent US interests.
> 
> You just made my point.  Why is the fact that the UN doesn't represent US 
> interests an issue if this war is about liberating Iraq?  If the Bush 
> administration's goal was liberation through altruism, then why wouldn't they 
> want help from the U.N. and other countries?  I would think that the Iraqi 
> people would want the U.N. because it has a much broader point of view.

Because this war isn't *just* about liberating Iraq.  It is about
disarming the Iraqi regime.  That has always been the driving force.
Yes, the liberation of Iraq is a part of it...really just a consequence.
That is how I see it.  The US didn't go the the UN and push for the
resumption of the weapons inspection process just to liberate Iraq.  I
think it has been quite clear that the primary reason this war has come
about is the Iraqi regimes refussal to disarm.

The Bush adminstration concluded that the only means of disarming Iraq
was by force.  IMO, you cannot seriously beleive that Iraq would
disarm peacefully.  In light of that, there are only a few options:

 - Containment.  The Iraqi regimes collusion with terrorists makes this
   an unacceptable risk.  I don't think a policy of containment would be
   successful.
 - Do nothing. North Korea is a good example of that.
 - Forcefully disarm Iraq.

The outcome of war will be the elimination of the Iraqi regime, the
consequence is the liberation of Iraq.  Condidering they will be left
with a largely dismantled government, doesn't it then follow that we
would assist them in forming a new, more democratic, government?

BTW, the push for regime change in Iraq was, in fact, already an openly
stated objective of US foreign policy put into effect by the Clinton
administration.  The fact that the Iraqi regime would never disarm
peacefully isn't a new revalation, it has been quite evident for twelve
years.  This isn't a new foreign policy crisis that just popped up from
nowhere, it has been brewing for a long time.

> I think the answer to why the Bush administration rejects the U.N. notion is 
> because the U.S. wants to control Iraq, specifically its natural resources.  
> This is why I called it imperialism (m-w.com):
> 
> "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a 
> nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect 
> control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the 
> extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence"

The people who reject the UN notion have no faith in the UN.  The UN
Security Council, as it is designed now, is a failure.  I tend to agree
with that.  It failed to persuade the Iraqi regime to disarm peacefully,
it is failing in North Korea, it failed the people in Rawanda, and it
failed the people in Bosnia.

Does that mean the UN has no utility?  No, and that is where I disagree
with those who say the UN should play no part in the reconstruction of
Iraq.

> > FWIW, tend to agree the with the Powell plan for postwar Iraq.
> 
> Me too.  Too bad it won't happen.  It's clear the Colin Powell no longer 
> yields any influence.

I think you are selling Powell short.  As I see it, he has had a
tremendous influence on the way things have gone thus far.  I think if
he felt he no longer has an influence on foreign policy he would resign.

Consider, for instance, that there were members of the Bush
administration who insisted that the US persue the disarmament of the
Iraqi regime without a UN mandate.  Powell objected and insisted that we
must not proceed unilaterally.  He insisted that we go through the UN
and seek a resumption in the UN disarmament process.  We did, the
weapons inspectors were there, but the Iraqi regime was still unwilling
to disarm.  And, the UN Security Council was unwilling follow-up on
their stated objective to disarm Iraq.  The way I see it, Powell only
conceeded that we were justified in proceeding without a UN mandate
*after* France made it clear that they would *never* support a second UN
Resolution that would lead to a war to disarm Iraq.

> > > Also, why has the period of U.S. military control
> > > moved from 6 months, as reported at the start of the
> > > war by Donald Rumsfeld to an 'indefinite period'?
> >
> > Where was that reported?  I don't recall hearing Rumsfeld say that, nor
> > do I recall any quotes stating that.
> 
> I heard it in an NPR report which used the 6 month occupation to estimate the 
> $75 Billion cost.  The NPR archive search was no help and I tried to find 
> other references and could only find dates between 2 years and 'forever'.  
> So, perhaps I wasn't listening closely.
> 
> > It doesn't even mention the Iraqi oil.
> 
> I didn't state my underlying assertion - that the Bush administration's desire 
> to control the rebuilding of Iraq is an extention of the desire to control 
> how the future distribution of oil.  
> 
> Maybe I'm all wet about this, but I am just too skeptical to believe the Bush 
> administration suddenly woke up and said, 'Gee, Saddam is such a bad guy.  We 
> need to get rid of him and liberate the Iraqi people'.

No.  As I stated before, the Clinton Administration put forth the policy
of regime change.  Bush is just following up on it.  The events of
September 11th elevated the priority.

The following questions and answers illustrate why.  Feel free to share
your answers and logic if you disagree with mine.

Q. What is one of the greatest terrorsist threats to the US?
A. Terrorists with WMD.

Q. How might we prevent terrorists from attacking US interests with WMD?
A. Elimnate terrorist organizations and eliminate their sources of WMD.

Q. What are the sources of WMD for terrorists?
A. Countries with WMD who also support terrorists (Iraq, North
   Korea, and Iran just to name a few).

Q. Where do we start?
A. First, the Taliban and Afghanistan, the home of Al Qaeda.  Second,
   Iraq.

Q. Why Iraq second?  Why not Iran or North Korea, who are argueably
   greater threats?
A. Because we are already halfway there with Iraq.  We have existing UN
   Resolutions in place to disarm Iraq.

> I wonder if $75 Billion spent this year by mine and your tax dollars could 
> have been put to use to bring about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime 
> without a war.  But, I don't think the American people would have wanted to 
> pay this price for peace - they will for a war though.

Well, you seem to have a notion of how that would work.  Why don't you
share it?

It sounds like a recipe for extortion to me.  "Here Saddam, we will give
you $75 billion/yr if you will be a nice guy, OK?"
-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
http://www.arabie.org/