In other words, it's not about Iraq, it's about Saudi Arabia and Turkey. And if 'we' can't be buddies with the Saudis, and we can't have our bases in Turkey, we'll need Iraq as a combined landing strip/oil field. That would mean it's not about spreading the Enlightenment, freeing the Kurds, or ousting a dictator. These, he supposes, will be the happy side effects that go along with the proconsul, paving, and partition. History is apparently no guide.
OK, I'm trying to understand. The U.S. 'runs a political slum in the region,' which generates the preconditions for 9-11, but then attacks a part it didn't run, and which doesn't have Al Qaeda--except perhaps in the Kurdish area--to clear up the slum? Oh, right, that was before, the next client state, man, we've learned our lesson, no more rotten ones, this next one's going to be pure as blow.
Also, where's the evidence that Saddam's about to be overthrown anyway? I'd think he'd want to throw in a line or two on that, since it's become a lynchpin of his argument here.
>It's hard to picture the disappearance of the Saddam regime as anything but
>an encouragement to civil and democratic forces in Tehran, as well as in
Bahrain, Qatar, >and other gulf states that are experimenting with democracy
and women's rights.
Tell me again how attacking the gulf state which has afforded women the most rights (comparatively) will encourage other gulf states that are "experimenting with democracy and women's rights." Dazzling.
Jenny Brown