If anything, last night's Republican debate was yet another unsettling right wing orgy for each candidate to attempt to outdo the other for being the most likely to start the next war, and to flex American military power around the world in the same reckless and cavalier manner as the current Republican administration has done in Iraq. John McCain took top honors as being the most hawkish last night and being the most likely to start the next war somewhere.
All of this banging of the war drums comes in the wake of the continued failed war for oil quagmire in Iraq, which while the security situation has improved somewhat, still continues as a very costly entity badly damaging the U.S. economy, while proving little positive political movement within Iraq among the deeply split sectarian religious elements. And this oil quagmire is unlikely to soon end, as a new "agreement" from the Iraqi government now formally requests that U.S. forces permanently stay in Iraq in bases for "security" reasons. Who couldn't see this prearranged U.S.-Iraq deal coming all the way up Broadway, intended to prevent any real U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, and only meant to continue the U.S. presense there no matter the feelings of the ovewelming majority of Americans on the matter. Such an arrangement may help to blunt Iranian designs on Iraq somewhat, but decades more of a strong U.S. role in Iraq is hardly what most Americans really want to see.
From the very beginning, Iraq has only been important to both Britain and the U.S. because of the massive oil assets there, which is estimated to be 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil, or equal to a 98 year supply for the U.S. at current consumption levels. After WWI, when Britain had defeated the Turkisk Ottoman Empire, Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered a British occupation of areas in the MidEast in which oil had been recently discovered, lumping together Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni elements with nothing in common in a phony oil occupation state of "Iraq" that lasted from 1922 to the bloody 1958 Arab Socialist rebellion, when the influence of Egypt's Gamal Nasser and the growth of Arab Baathist parties began to rebel against the British influence and occupation in the region.
The 2003 Iraq war intended by the oil and military contractor dominated Bush White House to reassert a modern form of colonial rule by the West over Iraq as well as the end of the erratic raqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. However, the 2003 war achieved none of the colonial U.S.-British goals of achieving lower oil prices or securing an increased supply of oil as recent world commodity markets have well proven, with gasoline now at least 80cents higher per gallon than only one year ago, as well as the huge costs of the war and oil now threatenng the U.S. economy with recession through a sharply decreased dollar value, as rival nations such as China buy massive amounts of U.S. bonds to help to fund the huge deficit spending required to continue the failed war for oil in Iraq.
Any modern reasonable person would want to run away from such a failed quasi18th century colonialist ideology of using American military power to occupy weak nations only to capture controlling interests of their mineral assets, but not the bulk of last night's Republican debaters, minus only maverick Congressman Ron Paul. And of these old-time colonialist war drum beaters, John McCain proved he could bang the war drums the most loudly of the bunch.
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!