Of course, Ft Worth Frog, nothing publicly points to that conclusion. Bush has done a VERY good job of diverting public attention from the dubious and questionable activities of such luminaries as Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root, from the nation's attention. He has very successfully invented the fabrication of "democratic nation building" as a purpose in invading Iraq. Outwardly, we seem to be trying to do it, and the Iraqi people tragically believe in it too, wait until they learn the truth, when they find they're no freer in the international spere, and still have little rights--Why didn't he initially come out and say, right from Day One, that we are in Iraq to build democracy there? Why the lies about the WMD's? Did he think that we would not love supporting such a noble cause as nation building, esp as we have enthusiastically done so before? Or was it b/c that was never the real intention, and at the time he could think of nothing else that would galvanize our support?
The only public buildings the US has consistently guarded from Day One are the governmental complexes and the Oil Ministry. Such facts as these were much remarke don in 2003 but seemed to get lost in the constant media drumbeat of "democracy, democracy." I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only kind of "democracy" we want to build is a nation with a heavy-handed, pro-American puppet gov't that can keep the lid on its volatile and unpredictable "man in the street" (which generally tends to be anti-American, in the Moslem world--this is why we weren't greeted as heroes) while the US puts in place an apparatus with which to exploit to the maximum its natural rescources. Namely, its oil. When we speak of "which party gets to control the oil" with regards to the Constitution, that is a sham. What we really mean is, 'Which party gets the hallowed privalege of staffing and working the wells whose largesse goes not to a strong, independent, Iraq which is the politcal equal of is, but instead mostly to us." The ideal we are striving for is NOT Japan or Germany but a milder version of Saudi Arabia. We were quite happy in the 1950's to let the autocratic and despotic al-Saud family consolidate its power while the employees of U.S. Oil Giant Aramco lived in isolated luxurious compounds and carried out their work while the not giving a damn about the local population. That was the way BOTH parties wanted and continue to want it. Bush's and Cheney's cronies live in the same type luxurious walled compounds. And the American employees of these companies get 10 times better health care and benefits than their Iraqi staff. Nobody can possibly be as bad as the al-Saud branch of the Royal Family, but we want an semi-autocratic gov't that will have no real true independent power (if it did, it would have the power to criticize our corporate actions there and limit corporate prescence ands military actions, much as Japan was able to throw out the Portugese Jesuits who controlled the Japanese silk trade in the early 1600's) and would not be able to confront us is, for example, in the future they think we are taking too much oil.
Democracies are fluid, unpredictable things. But they are democracies and equal to us, and when they make decisions we don't like, or say things to us we don't like, there's not a damed thing we can do about it. Except diplomatic protests, maybe a tarriff or two, etc. When France criticized our decision to go to war, did we send in 20,000 troops to make sure Chriac behaved himself, changed his tune, and continued to export the same French products to America in the same volume? ? No. There was media bashing and some boycotts, and that was it.
Tell me: If a"democratic" Iraq turned around 20 yrs from now and decided that the US was getting a bit too much of its oil, ot the amount that was being exported had to be drastically reduced to meet domestic needs, due to pressure from the public, who felt the US was getting too much, and they wanted to pressure us by closing the miltary base on the Euphrates, would we just be content to do some media bashing and light boycotts? Would we accept Iraq as an equal, as we accept France, ("Damn , there' nothing we can do, excoet boycott or slap down some tariffs") OR would we threaten to send in the troops and in fact do it, just to safeguard our continued oil supply, bypassing regualar channels of diplomatic communication like the UN, feeling it was out exclsuive right and privalege, as Iraq's "liberator" , to do so? Would we thus feel it was our right to treat Iraq like a child that must be "disciplined" by its parent, whne it gets "too uppity", and NOT as an adult we are having an argument with, and is therefore "undisciplinable", since it outgrew us long ago, and which we just have to learn to live with?
I doubt it. I think we will always see Iraq as our child, to do with as we please, regardless of who or what her government is, and regardless of input or advice or action from others. THAT , folks, is my defenition of a colony. To feel we have a right to "control" a place. Which I am sure Bush feels America should have.
As for the "Resolutions"..the first 3 were pre-2003, aftermaths of 1990. They were the loosly cited "precidents" looselt interpreted to got war. Tonkin all over again....The last ones were done by the UN b/c it had no choice. It wasn't "You were right to do this, you have authorization to conquer and occupt Iraq." It wasm "well, we have no choice at this point, sunce you're obviously not getting out." But do resolutions s like this have any real power, are they morally advisable? Say tomorrow China decided to attack Japan to revenge itslef for WWII. After the war goers on 3 months, and the UN reluctantly passes resolutions saying it agrees,since it can't stop it, does it really agree? Does an "After the fact" resolution have legitimacy? we may as well accept the law of the jungle. BUT we still went into Iraq alone, agaisnt the wishes of the entire world. The foreing troops stilwith us are under the command of US officers, NOT their own, and that is a crucial difference. Neither are the under the command of UN personnel, which truly consitutues an "inernational" force. With regards to Bosnia" : "Invaded" was perhpas the worng word. What I meant was that the UNited Nations eventually got involved and passed a globally-supported resolaution authorizung the use of a body UN peacekppers ans troops made up of troops sefing under US commanders, to go in and keep the peace. And Kosovo, yes, had no UN mandate, but you have to remember that this was an extremely rare case when SOMETHING had to be IMMEDIATELY, within days, or a genocidal situation was at hand. Do you remember what happened in Kosovo? Radovan Kadic, Milosovh's chief henchman, decided to continue to try for his "greater Serbia" by literally forcing out the entire Bosnian Moslem population of the province out at gunpoint. They were being force dout fo their towns and herded to the borders, where Serb miltary forced them to surrended their passports and ID, this renoucing clains on land and property. And htis was being done in a real time of DAYS and HOURS. NOT weeks and months, like in Rwanda or Darfur. I remember the news Special Reports on TV. "Peter, how many more people have crossed the border in the last 24 hours?" "Um, unconfimrned reports say another 500,000 since yesterday afternoon.They have no food, no water..." And so on. And Europe was doing not a damed thing. THis initelsf was nothing new but the FANTASTIC SPEED with which events unfolded WAS. Clearly Clinton felt guilty aoubt Rwanda and decided "not again." Bush would have ingnored Rwanda too (hey African ,livces are worth less after all), but he would have ignored Kosovo too....
IN the meantime, while we wait for Cindy's mother to stabilize (strokes are hell, my aunt had two of them....God bless both or them and the family...pray for them, .I hope this will help the Sheehan family to a temporary truce if not some reconcoilation..and if some nutjob even DARES to suggest this is Divine payback to Cindy--I wouldn't pu tit past some wackos out there, I don't mean posters on here..well, I hope they get what they wish on her).
Here are the artickes..which I think shoukd be required reaidng for all following this conflict.
The first one I had a problem linking with. It has been up since August 12 and already shows signs of becoming a classic article. Henry Kissinger weigns in on Iraq. "Lessons For An Exit Strategy." You need to register at the Washingotn Post website ,it;s quick and free, only a couple of bozes to fill in, and you'll find it in the "most Emiled Articles" box. Could domeone PLEASE post the whole thing on here, I don't know how to do this.
KIssinger talks of international solutions. Ha. I'm sure he means the UN. When the UN is borught in to keep the peace, THEN I'll know the US is sincere. But I don't think Bush wants the rest of the world to have any poitical say in dealing with Iraq--like IT will.
The second article's title says it all: "Philadelphia 1789 Vs Baghdad 2005." It's along scholarly contrast in COnstitutional situations. This link does work.
www.Slate.com/id/2124691?nav=wp
I hope someone can print this too. People tend not to comment on linked articles, and these are ome OF THE best american writing on Iraq, IMO.
died "in the line of duty" 
