Linda McQuaig
Anyone this butt-ugly should be full of hate.
Arf!
Posted on 01/30/2005 4:47:40 PM PST by srm913
LINDA MCQUAIG
In the weeks before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the influential New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote approvingly of "the breath-taking audacity" of the Bush administration's plans for Iraq.
Friedman noted that the invasion would lead to "a long-term U.S. occupation" and that "Iraq will be controlled by the iron fist of the U.S. Army." Apparently he didn't regard any of this as a problem — just part of the job of remaking Iraq to fit the fantasies of U.S. policymakers.
Friedman's casual acceptance of Washington's right to redesign other countries — an attitude rampant among media commentators as well as U.S. officials — sheds light on why the occupation of Iraq has been such a disaster, and why there's little reason to believe Iraq is on the path to democracy.
No matter how inspired the rhetoric, the U.S. project in Iraq has never been about democracy. It's been about getting control of Iraq's vast, virtually untouched oil reserves, and extending Washington's military reach over the region. "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath; you can't ask for better than that," Wall Street oil analyst Fadel Gheit told me in an interview.
Bush officials never wanted to run Iraq themselves, but rather to have a loyal local do it for them. Before the invasion, their plan was simply to install the wealthy, CIA-groomed exile Ahmed Chalabi. They also drew up sweeping plans to privatize the entire Iraqi economy, including the oil sector — before the Iraqi people got to cast a single vote.
But the "iron fist of the U.S. army" has not been popular in Iraq, fuelling a resistance that has turned key parts of the country into a free-fire zone.
Among other things, this makes meaningful elections impossible. If large numbers of people are too terrified to vote, the results won't reflect the popular will — yet they'll give an aura of legitimacy to a government that may represent a tiny minority.
But while useless in advancing real democracy, the election is highly useful to George W. Bush, who will point to a "democratic" transfer of power.
Questioned last week, Bush said the U.S. would withdraw if asked by the new government. Really?
Earlier in the week, the Pentagon acknowledged plans and budgets to keep 120,000 troops there for at least two more years.
It sure looks like Washington plans to go on calling the shots in Iraq, but now there will be a plausible government to show off to the world. If Iraq's oil industry is put on the chopping block and ends up in the hands of U.S. oil companies, Washington will be off the hook; the decision will have been made by the "elected" Iraqi government.
At last — mission accomplished.
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. lmcquaig@sympatico.ca.
This woman doesn't know what she's talking about. Ergo, she must be a leftist. She certainly sings the leftist line. What crap. These people have nothing to tell any of us.
No votes for oil!!! < /sarcasm > LOL!
I thought Canada (ie: the CBC/Ottawa Lefties) was fighting to keep FNC from airing.
Gracious, the folks up North are in desperate need of another news network to counterbalance the hate-America, Marxist propaganda that continually spews forth from the CBC. CBC is far worse than the BBC and Al Jazeera combined in its obvious anti-USA bias, IMHO.
Denny Crane: "I want two things. First God and then Fox News."
Linda McQuaig
Anyone this butt-ugly should be full of hate.
Arf!
Man, she could take on Helen Thomas!
Really stylish. Sort of "contemporary homeless person".
Yeah...I thought the Canadians had a big piece of these oil contracts through their French cousins. These people are all hypocrites.
Dear Linda:
We will have spent $200 billion on Iraq by the end of this year. This could have bought at least 200 billion gallons of oil wholesale, but we have yet to see bumkiss of that oil. Were we stupid? Or motivated by a higher cause? The numbers speak for themselves.
Its more like a charade within a charade. I don't give a rat's patoot about iraq or any other Arab state or any Arab. It IS about the oil. So what? Being about the oil is like being about the very air we breathe.
If Africa had oil we'd be in there solving their problems. They don't have any oil and so we don't really give a good GD about Africa.
Islam holds the power to throw the civilized world into chaos. They only need to shut down a few hundred wells and blow a dozen or so pipe lines ... disable the Suez canal. Iraq is just a good starting point to remake the face of Central Asia.
Actually, I agree with this. In fact the control over the region is more important. We are changing the balance of power away from the Saudi's who last I looked had the most men on the planes.
I guess they call this journalism in Canada. Sorry Canada.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.