Quote:
Quote by: bishop  really, i don't see the europeans as being entirely relevant.. our political establishment is hesitant to exit iraq and/or the region because that's a key strategic area for our empire. if we lose control over the middle east, there will be a fundamental shift in geopolitical power - in a way that will result in less u.s. influence in the world. europe would have a lot to gain from our withdrawal from the m.e. especially if the muslims really begin to price oil in euros. of course, you can't expect the politicians to publicly acknowledge this fact.
the only time that fact rears its ugly head is when people begin to talk about what would happen if we were to withdraw and iraq fell apart at the seams.. there's been very little debate about pros and cons of such an event both publicly and even on this site. the only thing we get from our horrendous "leaders" is the bushbot approach of staying the course, and the democrat twit approach of constant criticism without an alternative solution. (i can imagine a future democratic president blaming continuing problems on the mistakes that occurred during bush - which would be valid criticism, but we ought to expect more from our "leaders".) the libertarians have offered a withdrawal plan, but even they haven't talked much about the pros and cons of withdrawal.
bush thinks we need to stay, and he has years of experience in filling voters' heads up with fear mongering b.s. in order to win elections for himself and his corrupt party. the fool is going with what has worked in the past, hoping that the general public is even stupider than he is (something that was proven true in 2004).. i wonder how many of them will remember that he completely ignored bin laden just a few years ago, and focused all of his rhetoric against saddam. what could be the reason for all this newfound interest in bin laden, aside from elections and the fact that republicans are trying to distance themselves from this radioactive president (which is undoubtedly a blow to the chimp's petty ego)? |
Well the Europeans would perhaps be
forced to be relevant if we packed up lock, stock and barrel and left the Middle East completely. It is the oil they buy that comes from Iraq and they will have to negotiate it. When the Muslim Extremists take over their repective states like Lebanon and Iraq, it is their policies that will effect the Europeans with respect to the purchase of oil. Pre war Iraqi export of oil to the US was 10%., much less so than to Europe. Let France, Germany and Great Britain, negotiate with the likes of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The US has no sensible reason to be there.
That aside, the US strategic interest is here at home. We don't need a foreign policy driven by an insaitable appetite for oil. We don''t need to be "allies" with Israel simply to have a strategic "foothold" in the Middle East. And I know you would agree that we shouldn't be mortgaging our children's future by going in debt to the Chinese to finance a foriegn policy driven by oil that results in illegal wars.
The US is more than capable in protecting our homeland when and if the Muslim Extremists return to our shore to attack us. And when they do, they will be responsible for the carnage that will be released upon them. For example, if it is proved that the attackers come from Hezbollah that reside in Lebanon, then the US should give Hezbollah 24 hrs to give up the guilty, or suffer the consequences. The consequences being, total destruction so that they could never attack the US again.