|
Agreed. It just seems like a synthetic discussion when we're forced to discuss whether or not some guy from Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from some other guy in Niger, or whether it's possible that some people who might have known some Iraqis could have met potential agents of AlQueda in Poland or whatnot...and I keep thinking to myself that all of that is only marginally related to any decision we're in Iraq. I also get tired of the discussion about "faulty" information from the CIA and friends. I think its far more likely that we had the very best information possible, and that despite some possibly conflicting reports, we were very far from 100% sure of any *WMD" jazz, and I find the notion that I was supposed to scared shitless by the army that we "let's rolled" with some shock & awe in about three days. I think its far more likely that the powers that be (I personally include Congress and many of our wealthy cooporate entities here as well...our gov't. is very far from separated from business interests) knew more or less exactly what they were getting into, and chose to do so anyways. I think that conversation is far more interesting, but we are discouraged from having it lest we be branded traitors and low down dirty dogs.
If the facts are that Americans aren't willing to give up some of their amenities and lifestyle, then yes - we have to have access to escalating amounts of oil. That is directly contrary to the whole "peak oil" realties, and I know for a fact that it's not only hippies that are talking about this. I spoke with people working at US national labs that are having the same conversations, with the same projected data from the US geological survey. I think that the discussion of whether or not the US government has an obligation or credible moral grounds to secure access to the energy source that drives our economy and civilization is much more interesting that a conversation about whether or not bad people are doing bad things in foreign countries. They are. They have been, and it's easy to find documented cases of it where we don't do shit. It seems to me that Iraq is more a question of US oil interests & related economic situations, and Iraq being lowman on the totem pole whom everyone, from Al Queda to Britain to France, could agree they disliked. It was just a question of how to deal with them, and who would take advantage of the situation first. The US did. I don't personal support the decision to do so, but I respect the position that we had to based on securing our access to necessary supplies much more than the argument that we had to because Sadaam was the boogieman.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|