"Don't forget it's all about OIL."No, it's not. Oil is only part of the equation, although it might have been the hook that really drew Cheney and shrubya in. For the PNAC, the real agenda has more to do with U.S. global hegemony and colonialism than with oil,
per se. That said, it IS common knowledge that access to petroleum supplies will be essential to maintaining U.S. economic and military dominance during the next couple of decades. After that? It's going to get tough, and even the petro-heads in the administration know it.
"The UN will make sure Iraqis get the OIL, not Cheney and Poppy."The U.S. will still be a major player no matter what, if for no other reason than market forces, unless the U.N. actually embargoes the U.S. from access to Iraqi oil. That's an interesting thought, but not very likely-- and even less enforceable. Hear that great sucking sound? That's the U.S. rate of oil consumption-- something NO oil producing state wants to ignore. Poppy and Cheney's greed serves the PNAC's purposes, and makes them willing accomplices, but personal greed is not the primary motivation behind the neo-con agenda. Power and world dominance are, but that also-- and not just incidentally-- provides a framework for lots of "opportunity rich environments..." along the road to empire.
"With Bush and PNAC, even if they leave this year, they will reinvade next year, take the OIL back, reinstate the DRAFT and take over the next six countries on the secret memo list that Clark revealed."I certainly won't dispute ANY nefarious predictions about how badly the BFEE might screw the pooch over and over.
"That's PNAC, not staying in Iraq in a multi-lateral force and letting the Iraqis have their own OIL as Kerry would do."Have you read
Rebuilding America's Defenses? Here's a link directly from the horse's mouth if you haven't:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdfGranted, a multilateral force probably isn't the ultimate neo-con wet dream, but it doesn't detract too stongly from their regional objectives as long as U.S. forces are prominantly included (they will be), have a long-term force presence in Iraq, get to establish a regional mil intel hub in Baghdad, and so on-- especially if those multilateral forces remain under nominal U.S. command. All of these objectives will still be achieved unless the U.S. surrenders all of it's interests in Iraq and walks away, without reservations.
"Please explain how not invading the next 6 countries is following the PNAC Plan."I'll repeat my question from the reply above-- have you read the "PNAC Plan?" Again, the neo-con objective is global dominance and naked colonial aggression, and while they doubtless salivate over "invading the next 6 countries", that probably isn't necessary for achieving their objectives in Iraq (unless the Arab League unites and attacks, of course). A puppet gonvernment, strong diplomatic ties (ala with Iran under Shah Pavlavi), a ME intel hub, and a staging ground for
potential military sorties in the region will do nicely, I think. This is what Kerry must repudiate if the PNAC is to fail in Iraq.