THE "REAL" REASON THE U.S. IS IN IRAQ

I have heard of the scenario. I think it has some validity but that it goes a bit too far.

I think ties to saudi Arabia won't be severed but that with bases in Iraq the military footprint in the mid east will be altered.

I know that the admin has openly spoken of altering the military footprint and I believe it was Rumsfeld who spoke of a smaller footprint in Saudi Arabia.

But I think the hope is to have another foothold and not a replacement.

I know this may be an outlandish theory. But isn't it possible that in the muddled brain of Bush he actually believes what he has been saying publicly. Duh.

Au, are you thinking he has a clue to what he is saying publicly or otherwise?

I think more along Dys's lines, on this. I see shrubleyah as someone whose goals are painfully myopic and unambitious. I think he is motivated by being the BMOC worldwide, and all the "details" of domestic and foreign policy are just trappings. shallow as a pond, dense as a brick, useless as tits on a bull.

<deleted duplicate post>

dyslexia
I said muddled brain. He says and does as he is told. Understanding is not a prerequisite.

Okay, help me get up to speed on this issue. We used to be friends with Saudi Arabia, but offended Islamic sensibilities by maintaining forces in their holiest of holies, thus creating creatures like bin Laden. We now remove them and that's a hostile act. I'm getting confused.

After years of being concerned with our dependency on Saudi oil, it's really great to find out that we can sever that dependency just by leaving the country. We should have thought of this years ago.

We need the oil. Rumsfeld, et al want to make sure we aren't held hostage by middle eastern oil.......thus, we take over in Iraq.

Lola


At this point i am not sure who has taken over whom

My guess is we will never get bases in Iraq.

We'll play this little game we are playing for a while -- and eventually some American president will have the thankless job of pulling a Nixon -- declare victory and pull out.

Then the next dictator will take over -- and we'll feed and supply him until he gets out of hand -- and then we'll declare him a menace to the world.

This entire fiasco doesn't have the planning that goes into a typical two year-old's birthday party.

The people at the helm of the ship of state right now are among the most pitiful that have ever handled these duties.

Frank is probably right in the long term, except that instead of another dictator, they may end up with some sort of oligarchy of mullas.

I know i am grossly paraphrasing but i remember someone in the white house prior to the Iraq invsion saying to the effect " we will go in, get Saddam, leave them some water bottles and get the hell out"

COMMENT AFTER LOLA ...
While I was off line typing, there were a few more comments. This would've gone after Lola, "We need the oil. . . ."

Thanks to everyone who has responded thus far and for your most excellent comments.

My level of "being up on" the news isn't as high as I had thought. The foregoing possible course of action was a new concept. Also, somehow it never occurred to me that the U.S. could or would get out of Saudi Arabia. (A true Piscean - dreamer, head in the clouds!)

ALL of the above responses are valid points in the reasons for this "preemptive strike" - in the Bushies' minds, that is. However, more than the reality of one individual - Osama bin Laden - is the fact that 15 (?) of the September 11th terrorists were Saudi Arabia natives (not Saudis - those are the ruling-family members). Possibly, this was the wake-up call . . . the "straw that broke the camel's back." Now, finally, we get it and the time has come to go elsewhere for oil. Alaskan sources are in the offing, but so are the environmentalists. Plus, it takes time for exploration and development.

A couple of years ago, some students were discussing Mexican oil exports and the small U.S. importation of same. One student said, "If there is a difficulty, then the U.S. can just go take it." Oops!!! (But, remember the creation of the country of Panama to enable the Canal construction to go forward?)

Hydrogen-powered cars, please!!!

Reiteration: Being in Iraq is for more than the oil: It's a base of operations to protect Israel and other U.S. interests in the Mideast. Of course, there's the matter of the Iraqis' hostility toward the U.S. presence . . . Hm-m-m . . .

Back later.[/color]