In Reply to: can't get past your first two paragraphs posted by Acheick on June 23, 2004 at 17:59:45:
I'm not saying we're fighting ONLY because of oil. I'm saying that's a good enough reason in and of itself to be fighting.
You're asking what the strategic interests of the soldiers who fought in WWII were--beyond the ideal of freedom, preserving the American way of life, and stopping Hitler. At that point in history, we were not the dominant economic empire. England & France were. Germany challenged them--made a play to become the dominant world empire--and lost.
The global economy, post WWII, was divided between two superpowers--the US & Russia. Russia lost that battle at the end of the long cold war, and the US emerged as the leader of the dominant global economic empire. That's the history of global economic empire in our immediate lifetimes. The US has enherited the pre-WWII portion of the global empire that included Britain, Canada, Australia, and parts of the near east and far east.
In my discussion of current politics, I'm trying to inject an historical perspective on how we got to where we are today. The main point I am trying to make is that the US is central to the current economic world empire.
There is a discussion here with regard to Australian politics. The Aussies, Canucks, Brits & parts of Asia and the near East are extended portions of the "Anglo-American" economic empire. Although the Canadians have not sent troops to Iraq, they are part of the commonwealth. The Canadian economy cannot be easily separated from the US, simply because we're neighbors. The British and Australians are with us on "buying in" to the oil reserves in Iraq.
The freedom we are fighting for is called free market enterprise. Our indoctrination in the COG says this free market enterprise is the anti-christ "System," and we are to be separate and apart--not to be tainted by it. I am saying the free market enterprise system is worth fighting for. It defines what is meant by the American way of life. I am 110% Sold-Out Systemite.
Prior to our invasion of Iraq, the oil economy of that middle-eastern state was managed by France, Russia & Germany. All of those European states have mixed socialist economies. By invading Iraq, we have essentially "divested" those socialist states of any future development of the Iraqi oil reserves. This is comparable to taking away land from Native Americans. Alan's earlier research on this showed that the U.S. government justified its actions in the case of Manifest Destiny as "pre-emptive" warfare.
O.K. So we have a history as land-grabbing capitalists. That's the nature of the resource exploitation on which free market economy is built. We learned it from the Brits, the French, and the Germans. (And, btw, didn't the Aussies do their own version of this with the aborigines?) Maybe I should feel guilty about the fact that free market enterprise is built on resource exploitation, but as much I'd like to do it, it's kinda hard to give up my car and air conditioning. Rather than feel guilty about how free market enterprise works, why not be a good steward of the resources and look for ways to bring more people into the system?
That said, the U.S. have also done the Iraqis and the rest of the world an extremely big favor by getting rid of Hussein. That's a reasonably good moral argument for invasion, but not necessarily one based on our strategic economic interests.
Finally, I think there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, but it's much more complex than making that particular piece of real estate (Iraq) the front for stopping future terrorist attacks on US soil.
You don't have to agree with my interpretation of history and how that history has shaped current events, and that is the topic of debate. It's not simply a matter of personal opinion. It's more like, what are the facts and what do they mean? In what ways do certain things add up and make sense?