Iriemon said:
Your contention that without wise US "stabilizing" intervention oil production will drop to zero is not supported by the evidence. Iran did not stop pumping oil after the Shah was deposed and radicals took over the country. Iraq is still not producing as much oil now, 3 years after our stabilizing influence, than it was producing before the war.
Again, you are useing your words and portraying them as if they came form my keyboard.
It is not my contention that our "stabilizing" in the Middle East has been "wise." I do contend that it is necessary and that I contend that I don't see how, given this cultures appetite for oppression, "stabilization" could come any other way.
You are not reflecting on history accurately. The oil fields in Iran was protected by the military. After Khomeini took control he did what the Shah did - he neglected his people. However, he also neglected his military and it fell apart. This left the oil fields unprotected and open for Saddam conquest. People are quick to point out American greed for oil, but neglect to acknowledge the greed of Arab and Middle Eastern vision. "Oil" is the life blood of the Middle East and the elite has married their civilization to it's existence.
Saddam had to go. He was a threat on many different levels. For "oil," he threatened the balance in two different neighboring countries. The fact that oil production flowed from Iraq under UN law and sanctions, goes a long way to prove what is necessary to keep the world progressing. Oil production over the last three years is a side affect of ousting this tyrant. In time, it will become stable, but Saddam will not be there to threaten his neighbors and threaten to disrupt oil exportation.
Iriemon said:
And your argument is internally self-contradictory. We argue we need to support countries like Saudi Arabia to stabilize oil production, but then admit that that government is one of the most radical in the ME and probably the biggest force behind 9-11.
Yes. It is extremely contradictory. This is the true quagmire. This is American hypocrisy. It is out in the open for all to see (Unlike so many European countries who try in vain to hide their hypocrisies while snubbing their noses).
Meaning well, and behaving foolishly, we plunged into the Arab-Israeli conflict as an "honest broker," although neither side can accept the compromises required by such brokering, while our baggage as both Israel's primary supporter and the long-time backer of many of the most reprehensible Arab regimes is a debilitating handicap to mediation. Stability in the Middle East is critical, no matter if it is impossible without a Carthaginian peace imposed by one side or the other. Compounding to the confusion, as always, is the earnest college student, not yet seasoned by reality, as he marches in protests ignorantly chanting, "Down with Israeli terrorism!" and “Free Palestine!"
We have sacrificed our morals and values in this region because we need oil. It was not done on purpose. This was not deliberate. Were the Arab and Persian elite to treat their people with dignity and respect and not oppress and abuse them through a single dogmatic, controlling, brutal religion, our lives would be that much better. However, they have, indeed, oppressed and abused their people and as long as the oil flowed, we wrote the checks.
Our reality is contradictory and that is why I type the things I type. None of it is "black and white." Where countries do business with each other through their governments, there will always be grey.
