The Opinionated Bastard

Well Iraq is about a power play for oil, i dont think that is debatable given realpolitik. I dont htink it has much to do about democracy, even though liberal internationalists will argue that democratic nations dont go to war with each other thus promoting democracy is a good thing. Bush might believe this, but he really isnt president (hence he’s out bike riding as America effectively goes to code red while cheney is at the whitehouse working…plus, what decision could W make over Cheney in any policy area? answer, none.)Bush is just the PR guy to go out and gurgle about democracy, jesus, moral values (in oppressing others)and how the USA monopolizes all goodness as it wages war for peace.

But again, the US didnt invade iraq for democracy, but to protect itself from saddams WMDs..(ya, i know the story has changed…as the adaptive hydra of corporate media lies is apt to due)…but in the reality of power politics…IRAQ IS ABOUT OIL..make no mistake.

If the USA is so concerned about spreading goodness, why not intervene in Burma? the Sudan? Saudi Arabia? Indonesia? etc?

ernie

Well, we could easily have gotten their oil without invading. We buy oil from Iran, and they hate us. You can’t eat oil, and it doesn’t do you any good to have a surplus in your country, so you end up selling it, and some of that ends up in the US. All oil goes through the Chicago Boad of Trade.

Invading Iraq was always going to make oil more expensive, not less, we knew how bad their oil infrastructure was.

So any argument that it was about Iraqi oil doesn’t hold water, if all we wanted was the oil, there were lots of easier ways to get it. Now oil in general, or really, realpolitick in the cesspit of the Middle East, that’s true. But “about oil” is a huge oversimplification.

Most of those countries you list are only a danger to themselves, not to others is one reason, but we have been putting pressure on them. I don’t think its time for troops yet in any of those countries.

the 911 hijackers came from saudi arabia. and invading iraq isnt about consuming their oil, but about controlling their oil. there is a major difference here, but again one must look at power logic of realpolitik to understand this. states NEVER spend energy for benevolence, but for interests.

ernie

Well, I agree with the facts you state, but not the “controlling” conclusion.

In some sense, oil comes from the Middle East, in another it comes from the Chicago board of trade. I don’t think it was necessary to invade to control their oil.

Even if I did grant you that, it was one factor among many.

i think the many facotrs all involve geostragic control over the middle east for energy supplies. certainly, just like in central asia right now, US alliances with the tyrant in uzbekistan who boils people, it is about energy. or with turkey who openly kills kurds…caspian sea pipeline.

people need to make the connection between humvees on freeways and humvees having the shit blown out of them on iraqi freeways…then we can have a real discussion.

all wars are about economic power, no matter how much religious or secular virtue sentiment is poured upon them, the latter being mere propaganda that confuses many americans into supporting really bad ideas…the USA is truly turning decadent.

ernie

I think Woodrow Wilson bears more blame for Iraq then Bush. If you look hard enough (Turkey?) I think you can find an oil connection anywhere.

That doesn’t mean it makes sense. Sure, our foreign policy is about rational self interest (duh). But you fail to give Bush the proper credit for stating that democracy is in our rational self interest. That’s something new for American foreign policy, and while he’s only followed through on it 75% of the time, that’s a tremendous amount for US foreign policy.

For instance, Condi just chided the Saudi’s, the most oil rich country in the world about their still having slavery. Did you know that the Saudi’s only have a certain amount of time to end slavery before we’ll stop trading with them?

So while our foreign policy is always about our own self-interest, its not just about that either.

As far as all wars really being about economics, I think you’ve read too many Marxist-influence historians. I can think of several wars/genocides/etc. in the recent past that have been about other issues.

Explain the War of Spanish Succession in economics terms? I don’t think so.

marx was just a politcal economist so i wouldnt let ideology steer you away from reading an academic.

i think if you examined genocide tensions you would find that these tensions are dervided from historical economic concerns…(i.e. colonialists using one tribe vs another for profts.) that seemingly were based in ethnic

this isnt marxist radicalism, but mainstream thought..realpolitik. states do not use energy unless they expect more energy for what they have undertaken…basic capitalist logic..violence is ok if you can get away with it…all powers have always believed this.

ernie

I think that cleaving so hard to looking at everything in history as a class struggle blinds those historians to other, more likely, explanations.

In the case of tribal genocide, how do you explain a history going back 1000s of years between the tribes? Can’t those people just be angry with each other? Why does class have to come into it?

(Monty Python break)

There you go, bringing CLASS into it again.

(End Monty Python break)

As far as it being “mainstream” thought, if you look at the history of the study of history, you’ll realize that the Marxist view of history had its day in the sun, but most modern historians are coming to view it as too simplistic. The “political” historians like it, but that doesn’t make it true, just a point of view.

There is an economic element to history sure, but the mistake Marxist historians make is thinking its ALL about class/economics. Countries and people do things for reasons other then economics.

Like I said, the War of Spanish Succession would be hard to explain in terms of economics.