Would We Be "Spreading Democracy" in Iraq if It had No Oil??

[rrrevolution]

I don't think so.

Sorry folks, but it is all about the money(oil) --not the terrorists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. We wouldn't know where the middle east was if there was no oil.

It would be a backwater of 3rd world countries.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. To answer your question...

no. It's that simple.

[CatWoman]

3. well, DUH

and welcome to DU

:hi:

[photuris]

4. Ask Afghanistan n/t

[Mr_Spock]

5. No, of course not.

This maladministration doesn't care what we think anyway...

[Roland99]

6. No. But, that doesn't mean this war is ABOUT oil.

It's about much more than oil, well, at least Iraq's oil.

It's about a permanent US military presence right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East to protect all of the region's oil and also as a deterrent to attack Israel.

It's also about privatizing Iraqi and, eventually, the rest of the Middle East's resources for conquest by western (American) companies that are seeking more and more consumers to bolster its profits.

[electropop]

9. Yep. It's explicitly laid out at the PNAC site:

Where did this expansionist craziness come from? Here are some examples of it:

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

"... this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene."

"...the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces."

"While it should be a clear U.S. policy that such bases are intended as a supplement to the current overseas base structure, they could also be seen as a precursor to an expanded structure. This might be attractive to skittish allies as in the Persian Gulf region, where a similar system is in operation for whom close ties with America provokes domestic political controversy."

"... this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene."

"...this expanding perimeter argues strongly for new overseas bases and forward operating locations to facilitate American political and military operations around the world."

This wild-eyed strategy of conquest comes from a fringe lunatic group founded in 1997; the document was written in September 2000. Of particular interest is the reference to "skittish allies as in the Persian Gulf region...close ties with America provoke domestic political controversy." We now understand that this refers to Al Qaeda, which was founded to eject our bases from Saudi Arabia by whatever means necessary.

Here is the full document: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[Roland99]

10. I've never read that and I, as a former Republican, have figured it out.

Why can't the rest of America?


BTW, a permanent military presence in the Middle East to protect Israel certainly is a key part that isn't discussed much. Just look at the ties to AIPAC and spying and the PNACers. There was a thread up here a couple of months ago with all kinds of links to espionage/spying and PNACers like Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.

[wli]

13. well, I'd merely call that a more detailed assessment n/t

[sam sarrha]

7. we are not spreading democracy.. it is an Islamic Republic .. going under

islamic law very soon

[FogerRox]

8. thank you SAM

[lala_rawraw]

11. Not just about oil, also about empire building tendencies and the

Madness of a boy-king and his handlers.

[wli]

12. No. It's all about the oil. n/t