Quote:
|
Then we should STOP supporting the UN post haste, and do what is necessary in Iraq to extricate our troops, and what is left of our dignity.
|
and revert to a policy of what? isolationism? I agree with the need to extricate your troops but I dont think that is on GW's agenda. He means to have oil priced high until the end of his term as president.
He probably thought Iraq was beginning to run out of steam and so had to step up pressure on Iran.
Result oil at $74 a barrel.. when Iran predictably reacts by threatening to cut supply. I wonder what company makes a good deal of money from that. International tensions will deflate when Bush is out of office primarily because he is using international tension as a primary tool to drive up the oil price and gouge the public for his corporate buddies.
Quote:
|
the question is not unanswerable, we just need to pick one and DO IT!
|
The only way I can see clear of this mess is to get an Iraqi neighbor with a standing army to take over security temporarily. Why should a neighbor do it instead of the UN?
1. they have a vested interest in keeping the region stable.
2. It would earn a lot of goodwill points with the Iraqi government inthe long run.
3. they have relatively common values to the Iraqis compared with american/iraqi values.
4. They probably both hate americans giving them a common enemy to despise together which builds common ground.
when you are going to secure a country you dont do it with troops who have a totally different ideological framework.
It would be in the American best interest to get Iran to intervene. However GW seems to be taking that option off the table with his bickering about nuclear technology.