Quote Originally Posted by creepy View Post
So you're saying that the U.S. that will NOT benefit?!? And the U.S. govt is doing this out of the goodness of its heart?

Oil is not a dirty word. But INVASION (for the benefit of oil) is a dirty word.


Ultimately, I think the U.S. administration will opt to chicken out of Iraq after causing so much mayhem there.
Of course the US will benefit. Having bases in that part of the world is a big advantage. But, much of these stems from unfinished business dating back to 1990. Leaving Saddam in power has dogged Bush Sr since Desert Storm ended. Even then, we knew the US will have to deal with Saddam again and years later, it did happen.

I doubt the US wants Iraq's oil for themselves. First of all, the Iraqis as a whole wouldn't stand for it. Second, the US has plenty of oil. If they wanted to solve the US gas shortage, they can solve it by increasing output. Judging by how low prices of gas has gone down (current prices in AZ are the lowest I've seen in a year and a half) it isn't necessary.

No matter which administration is in power, the ultimate goal is to get US ground troops out of Iraq while perhaps, retaining the bases. Another mistake is staying too long and trying to make sure democracy takes root. Personally, I would've withdrawn all US troops after Saddam's capture and let the Shiites and Kurds take over Iraq as they pleased, even if they would've wreaked their vengeance on the Sunnis. If the Shiites wanted a theocratic state instead of a democracy, then so be it. Some countries are just not meant to have a democratic form of government.