Pookie,
“Strategic Relationship” means that because it’s more convenient for us to have a stable Saudi Arabia, we let them do as they please. The “Saddam was an evil dictator that tortured his own citizen” is used to justify invading Iraq; while the same thing is going on in S.A. But they’re strategic allies, so it’s okay."
But here is where you miss the point - Iraq was at the end of diplomacy, essentially the close of the first Gulf War.
As for why to invade Iraq, there were over 20 reasons set forth in the Senate Resolution. The chief concern was, of course, that Saddam would act as a weapons broker to our enemies, but there were numerous reasons to invade, all set forth in the Resolution, which had bi-partisan support.
As for SA, I agree with you to a certain point - but attacking SA in the same sense we attacked Iraq is ridiculous because it completely ignores the history of the Gulf War.
“With a REAL coalition and majority support from the U.N.”
Question - how exactly do you define a ‘real’ coalition? And second, do you think we could have organized a ‘real’ coalition if France and Russia did not have oil contracts and creditor status with Saddam?
I suspect that our lack of a ‘real’ coalition - by your definition - rested on some pretty unsavory motives. You think France and Russia were being peace champions all for the sake of human rights?
“As to the question of whether people here are ready to accept higher prices and/or a lower standard of living while the world truly becomes democratic; that’s a whole other question.”
True, but an important one, because war critics constantly talk about how our war in Iraq should have been extended to every other bad guy in the known world - a false conclusion - and that decision, like going into SA, has practical consequences that have to be measured on a case by case basis. Going into SA would have drastically different consequences than going into Iraq - and whether or not we think the trade-offs are worth it are a very important question.
“You’re absolutely right. That’s why the often repeated claim of “We’re bringing them freedom and democracy” is so dishonest. You wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t in your best economic/political interest to do so”
It is definitely in our best political interest to be there - national security. The old realist ‘status quo’ approach got us where we are today.
“…freeing the Iraqi people is simply a smoke screen to paint a veneer of nobleness of the invasion of a sovereign nation.”
Nonsense - pure conspiracy theory. Why would we want to invade just to invade? We don’t want the real estate - we aren’t moving in. We don’t want the oil - Iraq retains sovereignty over their natural resources. Invasion for sport? Not likely.
The invasion was predicated on making the US safer, and ultimately, the world. Will it work? I don’t know, it’s a big risk that might not pan out, but don’t ascribe false motives to it.
“There’s a difference between respecting sovereignty and actively supporting oppressive regimes.”
My point was - ‘who are we to judge that they are oppressive?’, using the Left’s silly relativistic jibberish.
Further, and this is a complicated topic, but how is it that Islamists are mad that we ‘oppress’ Muslims when what they really want is a more oppressive regime than the one we support?
“The West has been meddling in their affairs for a very long time. Before the US, their were Imperial Britain and France.”
Your history is selective. Why not go a step further back and talk of how the Muslims were meddling in everyone else’s affairs until the Ottoman Empire was dismantled after WWI? That would be inconvenient for you - that flies in the face of being able to pin blame on Western imperialism while exonerating the Muslims.
So I don’t doubt there has been extensive meddling - but don’t stop in history where it is convenient for you.
“You helped put the shah in power in Iran… you helped put Saddam in power in Iraq”
Iran? And as for Iraq - the US was a very, very small player in supporting Saddam. I am not saying we didn’t, but keep the situation in perspective - many countries saw Saddam as a buffer against the Ayatollah’s Iran. A wise choice? Maybe, maybe not - but perhaps the best of the available.
“…you’re support to Israel is the only reason it’s still on the map.”
Is this a bad thing? Israel is a legitimate country, recognized by the international community as a sovereign nation. It has been attacked numerous times merely for being a Jewish state. They have the right of self-defense, and if we choose to help them in that endeavor, so be it.
“It’s hard for a people to revolt against a despotic ruling party when that party has the support of the US behind it.”
I absolutely agree - and I am glad to see that the relationship with SA is changing. However, if OBL and the other terror groups hate current regimes like the one in SA, why are they not attacking them? Why not have a coup if you want to overthrow the government?
I suspect because their motives are much broader than that. OBL wants to incite a holy war - he has said so and his actions demonstrate it. He wants the ‘clash of civilizations’, not just a change in leadership. If all he wants is change in leadership in certain countries, he has the money and terror power to get it done.
“They’re also the possibility that they don’t want democracy; that they’re not thirsty for it. Maybe they like Taliban-like Islamist Republics.”
Oh, I think that is exactly it. The Islamists don’t like Muslim leadership in most places because they are (a) apostate leaders or (b) they have too many Western influences. Hence my point earlier - Islamists want to usher in a government more oppressive than anything the Muslim nations currently have going.
