Reply #15: Well, I hope you keep waking up and move on from only...

[Crankie Avalon]

..."beginning to become ALMOST concerned" to being flat-out outraged. I can't speak for "the left," to use your phrase, as I'm not truly a part of it. Or, if I am, I'm only just moving toward it. I'm more just someone who is horrified by the excesses of the elements behind the Bush regime and it seems "the left" is the only domestic source that can possibly oppose it. I wish "the left" would get its act together and become more effective. That being said...

1. How can we "correct our mistakes of the past" when we don't even have the decency to acknowledge them? What mistakes? We have a shameful history of meddling in the affairs of weaker nations but we don't even admit it in any official or significant way. We continually profess some fantasy of what we want to think we are. The fact is, once upon a time we occasionally did good in the world--maybe enough to offset the suffering we caused--but that was a while ago. I'm not quite sure when it happened, but it seems pretty obvious now that we have reached a point where we actually do more harm than good in the world. And so, the world has come to openly hate us. In consequence, many in this country are culitvating a "who cares what the world thinks" attitude as a personal defense mechanism against having a mirror held up to them that shows a reflection they don't like. More of our military intervention to "correct our mistakes???" Please. With all that has come out about how this Administration was planning a war of conquest in Iraq from the very moment it took power in January 2001, about how it seized the opportunity to skew intelligence to make the unrelated 9/11 attack appear like a justification for invading Iraq, about how, once that charade began unraveling, a need for a pre-emptive strike due to "WMDs" was concocted, about how, when that fell through, we then moved on to a farce about "liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal tyrant" (as opposed to the brutal tyrants who are our friends in almost all the rest of the Arab world who don't need toppling)--after all that, I can't believe anyone could still believe we are in Iraq to "correct mistakes." The world has had more than enough of our "correction." No honest person could blame them.

2. These countries wouldn't need to be rebuilt by us if we didn't go in and wantonly bomb them for no good reason in the first place. But I suppose we had to "destroy the village in order to save it." If "Big Business" is so concerned with the good of the Iraqi people, why is it that only they and the American ruling elite are the ones deriving any share of the spoils? Even the truck drivers "rebuilding" Iraq are Americans. Why aren't the Iraqi people given these jobs? Why aren't the Iraqi people themselves, to the maximum extent possible, being allowed to participate in the "rebuilding" of their country? Because that would cut into the richness of the contracts. U.S. "Big Business" is NOT the only one with the "resources and capital" to get Iraq on its feet as quickly as possible (or, "on short notice" as you say). Why didn't we allow Europe to help? If we really wanted all the help for the Iraqi people available rather than just keeping the money all to ourselves? Because we DID want to keep the money all to ourselves.

3. Why on earth do we need to go in and "oust" people who are no threat to us in the first place? Who are we to play God and just go in uninvited and topple other countries governments to set up puppet regimes of ours in their places? WHO DO WE THINK WE ARE??? If we're really just trying to bring "justice" to the world, why don't we start by "cleaning house" in countries that aren't oil-rich? Because they're not enticing boondoggles for corporate bloodsuckers. The only reason we even went into Afghanistan was because its involvement in 9/11 couldn't be denied--even by a pack of liars as shameless as the Bush Administration. But, they never really wanted to go. From their perspective, there was no point. Well, I guess the deal to run a natural gas pipeline through the country is profitable enough for them to keep a few thousand legionaries, but not much else.

4. Yes, Saddam stopped benefiting American interests after the eighties. That's the whole point. We used military force on him in the early nineties when he challenged for control of the oil in our client state of Kuwait. We miscalculated and thought that defeat would leave him weak enough to be toppled by forces within his own country with whom we could then cut a new deal. The U.S. wanted Iraqi elements to do the dirty work, and shied away even when it became apparent they couldn't do it on their own. But once it was realized Saddam was there to stay, unless military force was used in another war against him, the elites of this country began their plotting and dreaming for that very war. The Clinton years put a delay on that, but once they came back into their own with the second of the Bushes in office, it was only a matter of time before another one of our wars of conquest was going to take place. They want Iraq as an insurance policy--it is the second most oil-rich nation and, if an Islamic revolution takes over Saudi Arabia (the first) and knocks out the ruling family there the way the Shah (another of our client creations) was knocked out of Iran, our ruling elite would still have Iraq's oil supply to fall back on.

At this point, I have to say I think either you are pretty naive or you are just putting me on. The tone of your message was respectful and made me treat it seriously and give it a full answer. It took a while to write, AND I'm at my paid work. I hope I didn't waste my time on someone who is just here looking to start trouble while "staying JUST under the radar." I hope you become a valued member of this community.

Take care.