Q about Iraqi "liberation" that no one has ever been able to answer.

If we went to war with Iraq to "liberate" then from their government....why did we stop there? I can name many, MANY other governments that are brute & oppress their people like Saddam Hussein did.

One is Saudi Arabia, a government Bush seems to love.

Why liberate the Iraqi people, but ignore the billion more (counting China) of other citizens living under tyrannical governments?

This in no way means I believe Bush should go after all these other nations...but why hasn't he? I mean he is the liberation president, right?

So you'd think he'd want to liberate the world from bad governments...no?

I guess I'm just confused here.

Why only Iraq and not North Korea or Iran?

Or, rather, the answer is that there is no answer, because Bush didn't give a flying flip about liberating anyone or anything except Iraqi oil. I hope everyone read Will Pitt's article on conditions in Iraq. They can't buy gasoline in their own country because we won't let them open their oil wells. Anyt speculation as to why?

We conquered Iraq for the same reason every empire conquers other nations-- for the money, for the land. To make it ours. We don't do that to Saudi Arabia because they are already ours-- at least as much as we need them to be.

If that oil started flowing, meaningfully, the bottom would drop out of the market. So they keep it off, in reserve, they take other oil off the market by filling the strategic oil reserve to levels never-before seen, they do not pressure the cashed-up oil companies for capital investment in refineries and other infrastructure...

It is market manipulation writ very large.

Also, while I do think that peak oil is a very real, very substantive and very serious issue, I do also think that the sudden emergence of it, as a subject of discussion and worry in these times, is something that is all too convenient. It goves some a lot of cover and justification on a lot of things. Now, that does not mean that it should be discarded as a subject of discussion and planning, but the timing of it should be regarded with a bilious eye. The currency of their realm is FUD.

Those are now OUR strategic oil reserves. We can control it how we see fit. We can control the market, the price, the availability of large amounts of the world's oil supply.That gives us power over even China, to some degree.

That's our real objective, the real point of PNAC--world domination.

The Crusades of the Middle Ages are always taught as a great religious endeavor. Urban II whipped all of Europe into a religious frenzy, and a bunch of clueless knights rushed to slaughter the infidel and control the Holy Lands for two centuries. It's a nice story. And it's true, as far as the whole "religious fervor" thing went. But two of the three world trade routes of that era flowed through the Middle East--one through the Red Sea, the other across Arabia. The Crusades gave the Pope and the Italian city-states of Venice and Genoa control of the ends of those routes, just as European commerce was beginning to emerge. It was no accident that Venice supplied ships to the Crusaders, nor was it a gesture of piety. As long as Europeans controlled the ends of the trade routes, Venice could control Mediterranean trade, in both directions.

As the Muslims began to unite and drive Europeans out of Palestine (the whole region was called Palestine then) the Europeans hung onto the trade cities along the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Some historians have believed this was because those were the cities Europeans could defend with ships, so those wer just the last to fall. But those were really the cities they wanted. And the Muslims wanted. Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire--a great Muslim sympathizer--actually negotiated the surrender of Jerusalem to the west during his Crusade--which was more of a diplomatic affair. The pope was livid. The pope didn't want Jerusalem. He wanted the trade routes. Frederick II was raised in Sicily amongst the Muslims, Christians and Jews. He liked the Muslims better than the Christians--for good reason at the time. They were richer and more civilized. Frederick did not want the Christians screwing up their trade.

When the Europeans were finally expelled, it was because they began to march farther into Arabia, to conquer the whole route, not just the terminus. The media of the day played the whole affair just as the media of this day plays it--all a question of personalities and a few leaders. But it was all economics. Religion was used to manipulate the masses, but the real motivation was the trade route. Money. Or, the real purpose of money, power.

The history of the Crusades is never written like that, unfortunately.

History never repeats itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Mark Twain.

They have oil too.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

be involved in Iraq, your logic is faulty.

To illustrate - let's say you go by the homeless guy in the street, and you decide to give him $5. Why did you give it to that one and not to hundreds of thousands of other homeless guys? And if you don't go and seek out those hundreds of thousands and give each of them money, does that mean that you should not give the $5 to this particular one? Does it make you a hypocrite because you only gave to this one and not to all the others?

Not a nation. Nations are different, sorry. We must hold nations to a higher standard. One is some modicum of consistency. Another is, do not just pick on the easy ones. That is just being a bully.

higher standard" than individuals? That's about as unrealistic an attitude as I have ever seen. I believe it was Churchill who said "Nations don't have friends, they have interests". This holds as true today as it did in his time.

Edit: I looked it up and apparently it was Charles de Gaulle who said it, not Churchull.

The government must not show such bias.

For example, if the government gave $5 to me, and not to you, though we have identical need, then that would be illegal. If the gvernment loaned you money to go to school, and not me, though we have identical need, that would be illegal.

Why should the government free one land, and not another, though both have identical need?

The governmenmt should treat all equally. Freedom and liberty for all.

End tyranny for all, or for none.

But NOT for some only. Under all other circumstance, that would be illegal.

Why would anyone on a liberal forum quote Charles de Gaulle? But, thanks for correcting your first statement.

However, how is anything that you said a rebuttal to the obvious fact that nations MUST be held to a higher standard than individuals. Unrealistic? It is a part of the assumptions of most of what is "international law."

Come on, try again.

Assuming that I only GAVE that homeless person on the street $5...not realizing that possibly I give $5 to every homeless person I see. Or at least as much money I have available. If I had the ability (like the US government does) to give $5 to every homeless guy in the nation, I would.

But that isn't really realistic, is it? But that doesn't mean I've only helped ONE homeless person either.

So your argument would have validity that if in my whole life I only gave $5 to one homeless person and then stopped.

if you give $5 to some homeless people and not to others. You don't have to give to just one. It could be to several - but not ALL, right?

That is what the original poster was wondering - why we don't "liberate" all oppressed nations, but only went for Afghanistan and Iraq (ok, add Grenada and Kosovo and Panama etc. as well).

Pres. Bush says he's liberating the Iraqi people to help spread democracy and freedom around the globe. How does that spread democracy and freedom around the globe? IF it were really about liberation, he'd go into other nations as well...he is not.

It's not about liberation.

Just like if I were to say I'm going to help stop homelessness and then turn around and only give ONE person 5$. That isn't going to stop homelessness, is it?

(and once again, this is about logic, not the veracity of the statements themselves)

A. Bush: "liberating Iraq helps spread democracy and freedom around the golbe".

B. Sean Reynolds: "if he meant it, he would go into other nations as well".

You don't see how your statement has nothing to do with Bush's? If liberating Iraq actually does "help spread democracy and freedom etc", then it can help it without occupying any other nations. If it doesn't, then occupying other nations will not help either.

As for your other example - "stop homelessness" - no. But if you said "I'm going to help eliminate homelessness" and then went out and gave ONE homeless person a job and a place to live that he could pay for with the job (and made it very public) - you can see how your statement could be taken at face value.

Thanks for trying though....you can have fun supporting Bush's war, but you're not getting the point I'm trying to make. During the build up to the war Bush talked about WMD...then after they found no WMD he said they did it to liberate the Iraqi people and that the United States should help spread freedom throughout the world.

Well if he really wanted to spread freedom around the world he'd do more than just invade Iraq. How much clearer can I get? We didn't go into Iraq to liberate it....or we'd help liberate other nations as well.

Thank you, have fun with your GOP talking points. :)

It seems that our confused friend has left us for the time being. Nevertheless, his RW talking points have, of course, failed him miserably. Perhaps he has gone to consult his Hannity and Savage tapes to see what he should say next.

Your entire premise of homelessness has no basis whatsoever. IRAQ HAS AN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF AT LEAST 50%!!! How can you even think of comparing this to giving a homeless guy a job? We have left untold numbers of Iraqis homeless, if not dead! We have destroyed ENTIRE CITIES! How can you compare this to giving a homeless guy a place to live?!?!?!

I think people should take YOU at face value: someone with confused beliefs and mistaken perceptions.

Our invasion of Iraq and the claims of "spreading democracy" would be like: going to a homeless person, kicking him/her, spitting on him/her, and taking what little money s/he has, and then you try to get the person fired from their menial job. Then, you go and shout as loud as you can that you have spread prosperity.

That is like what the disgusting Bush Junta is doing to Iraq.

If I made a big stink out of supporting the homeless (like Bush did with talking about spreading democracy and liberating nations) and then only gave five bucks to ONE homeless person, I'd be a hypocrite. Because that isn't doing anything to help the homeless problem is it? So how does liberating Iraq help give another nation freedom.

It doesn't.

We have given NOTHING to Iraq or its people. Pain, chaos and injustice are the only results of America's base actions. If you truly think invading a country with NO REASON, MURDERING 100,000 civilians; MURDERING over 80,000 Iraqi Military personnel; destroying countless schools, museums, houses; depriving the people of Iraq of jobs, food, water and basic means of life, not to mention their own dignity; making a mockery of human rights in every way; allowing the country to fall into completely lawlessness; among many other horrible deeds, is akin to "giving a homeless guy $5", you are insane.

I'll let you think that over a little bit.

We ALL KNOW it has nothing, and never had anything, to do with liberation. Lots of other reasons.

Still, we will go into Saudi Arabia if we feel the need.

at Uzbeckistan now today. A popular uprising which has only warranted a brief "we hope its resolved peacefully" standard we don't give a shit response.

Uzbeckistan's regime jumped on the "we're fighting terrorism give us money and guns and we'll let you put your troops here" side of the fence post 9/11 as have countless other tyrannies.

I would suggest that the US campaign has increased tyranny around the world.

Bush was quick to start cheering on the Lebanese, the Ukrainians, and the Gorgians publicly. But one US friendly dictator kills hundreds of his own people in a popular uprising and Bush couldn't give a fuck.

Same old story for decades, why do people believe this rhetorical bullshit?

Operation Iraqi Liberation was designed to ignite a domino effect of freedom rolling through all the terra-ist nations of the Middle East and Central Asia. Its just a coincidence that all the terra-ists just happen to be in the exact same place on earth where our oil is. Just a coincidence.

The tidal wave has been a little slow picking up momentum. But we gotta stick with it, you know, can't look weak. Yep. Can't look weak when yer fightin' for liberty and freedom all over the world...

Just wondering 'cause if you think the people of China are suffering worse than the American people,...you may want to take a closer looksee.

With respect to your point, the bottom line is that the neoCON corporacrats have no interest in liberating anyone. They don't value the freedom of human beings. They seek to profiteer off humanity and are prepared to USE anyone to do so.

that he supposedly invaded Iraq for.

Notice how since he never found those WMDs he lied to us about, that he's making like it's all about spreading freedom now. Gimme a break. If it was all about democracy, he'd be taking on China, but we all know he aint about to start any shit with them or anyone else with any muscle.

And if it were about overthrowing dictators, then all he has to do is go a few miles from Florida and knock out Castro. Oh wait, we don't need any sugar, and cigars aren't all that popular anymore.

In the world of neoconservatives, the bastard children of Strauss, there is a "real" reason known only to the selected elites who are smart enough to reject notions of morality, and the "fake" reason given to the unwashed masses so they can feel good about themselves doing amoral things.

Liberation was the explanation given to the rubes, after all the other excuses have been exposed as lies. Unfortunatly, it means the war was illegal.

Tienanmen Square was laid directly on the Clinton administration.

Nothing to see here, mission accomplished.