<div>Sunil, Roger et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thank you Sunil, for acknowledging my post, and to Roger for his response.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One of the variables that needs to be considered in the current US Middle East policy is the fact that oil rich fundamentalist Islamic anti-US Iran is/has become increasingly powerful, and this increase in Iran's power has been on the radar for years, no doubt involved in the equations in our invasion of Iraq. Gone are the days we could install our puppet dictators in Iran! Iran is now the potential fundamentalist Islamic anti-US superpower in this region, and marginalizing their power is no doubt a priority of US long term strategy.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I don't think the idea that the Islamist world could use oil as an economic weapon against the US or the West is a far fetched idea. The problem with this theory is that the Islamic world has too much infighting to allow the unity of purpose that would render denying access to oil to the US or the West effective, insofar as it would require unity among a number of Islamic nations across the Middle East. Nonetheless, the possibility of this outcome I think does motivate US strategic planning in this region, involved in our invasion of Iraq.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The theory we could continue with access to Middle East oil with the old paradigm of manipulating the governments in this region to our ends has been under question with Iran in the equation, ever since the first Bush Gulf War that stopped Iraq's expansionist goals, and probably before, since the 1979 Iranian revolution. How easily it seems the US public forgets that the US supported Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war after the 1979 Iranian revolution (have you seen the photos of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam?), the US supplying Saddam with some of the same weapons we now condemn him for using as an evil dictator in Saddam's war against Iran!!!!!!!!
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sure, in an all out fight, Iran would not stand a chance against the US, but the costs of this military approach would be great. Invading and "conquering" Iran, a much bigger more powerful nation than Iraq, would be a nightmare compared to our invasion of Iraq (though it can be argued we have yet still to "win" the Iraq war, given the chaos and attacks ongoing every week), a joke of a military contest, given the US's overwhelming advantage.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A nation that would take our citizens hostage, as Iran did in the Iranian revolution, for its own political/military goals, could just as well try to deny US access to Middle East oil. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The US will move dramatically in the future in one way or another to undermine the power of Iran, to assure that Iran does not threaten our allies or our access to Middle East oil. I think Iran developing nuclear weapons would be a disaster, but with the US invasion of Iraq, can you blame Iran for wanting the best military defense possible? Iran's nuclear weapon program can thus be viewed in part as blow back from the US invasion of Iraq, and to insist otherwise is to stretch credibility of analysis. Of course Iran probably would have pursued nuclear weapons anyways, as many nations have for their own defense, or other nefarious intentions, but perhaps not quite as quickly or aggressively if the US was not breathing down their throats on their east and west borders in Afghanistan and Iraq.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The US Middle East policy is to fight terror? Support democracy? Get rid of dictators?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then why do we support the corrupt dictatorship of the Saudi Royal family over Saudi society, a government and Wahabist culture that, while investing 100s of billions, maybe close to a trillion, in the US economy, and being friendly to assuring US access to Saudi oil, treats women like slaves, tortures its own citizens, denies freedom of the press and political organizing, and has been quite convincingly documented to be connected to massive funding of Al Queda, with 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists being Saudi nationals?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It seems we should have invaded Saudi Arabia in our war on terror?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I usually get either hostility or silence to these questions, from those who support our current administration's Middle East policy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/6/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Sunil Ramalingam</b> <<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Matt,<br><br>I suspect you'd call me ignorant no matter what I said, but what the hell,<br>I'll reply anyway. I think the war in Iraq is entirely unrelated to the
<br>so-called war on terror. I'm not sure how one wages a war on a tactic, but<br>Iraq is a separate and unrelated war.<br><br>I disagree with what Phil says about the war not being about oil. I think<br>it's about securing access to Middle-East oil; I think one of the goals was
<br>to be able to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and into Iraq. I don't<br>know if the Administration is starting to give up on that one as things are<br>going so poorly; I wonder what is going on with the plan for long-term
<br>bases. Our 'liberal free press' hasn't done a good job keeping us informed<br>about that aspect of the occupation.<br><br>I see Ted has also raised the issue of the long-term bases, so I won't say<br>any more.<br><br>
If Iraq's oil is being used to rebuild Iraq and make it a better country,<br>it's a pretty well-kept secret. Someone ought to let the Iraqis know about<br>it. They seem to have gotten the idea, from watching what goes on around
<br>them, that reconstruction is about American companies lining their pockets<br>while they stay unemployed.<br><br>I think the notion that we have the right to invade other countries to make<br>them better is a dangerous and arrogant one. Perhaps we should demonstrate
<br>that we can rebuild the Gulf Coast before we go around invading countries<br>that haven't harmed us and killing their people.<br><br>Sunil<br><br><br>>From: "Matt Decker" <<a href="mailto:mattd2107@hotmail.com">
mattd2107@hotmail.com</a>><br>>To: <a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>, <a href="mailto:rhayes@turbonet.com">rhayes@turbonet.com</a><br>>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">
vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Re: LMT reporting US losses<br>>Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:00:17 -0800<br>><br>>Sunil,<br>><br>>Isn't the war, a war on terrorism.Thus the war in afganistan, Indonsia,
<br>>Phillipines, Iraq, and even Sudan. With all of these countries involved, I<br>>think its a little ignorant to say "this" war is about oil.<br>><br>>Secondly, If the oil in Iraq is being used to rebuild Iraq and make it a
<br>>better country, isn't that a good thing?<br>><br>><br><br><br>_____________________________________________________<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<br></blockquote>
</div><br>