[Mahogany Martin]

.. theres a whole question that scapgoating saddam and invading iraq/more western influence in the middle east is just a ploy to get oil, this is more than likely true. ...

I hear what you guys are saying. But I'll be the devil's advocate for the media for a sec and say that corruption and greed happens at many levels, worldwide and locally. And *media* is made up of people and these people have to remain objective. If *it* happens, they report *it*. But they are people too, working for a boss whose is part of political *webs* and so on the story goes.

But to *focus* on an element such as a "ploy to get oil" is accepting a tunel vision. There's a whole society that's been persecuted and who is happy that their tirant leader is finally gone. They too I'm sure are tired of what it's brought and most likely even more so.

We now do business on a global level, we also need to lend a hand for global human rights.

.02c

 

[Mahogany Martin]

I don't believe that oil was a factor in the US taken part of the Vietnam war. Other political interest maybe. "You have to pick your battles". I'm not necessarilly disagreeing with you.

 

[Mahogany Martin]

oh yeah. different political agendas for different times. But although US *invaded* Irak, they also thought that they would withdraw sooner than they'll have to now.

What happens if they do withdraw? These poor folks will be back to square one. And what if things went *according to (some sort of) plan*? US withdraws, there's democracy in place and that country eventually takes its place back in the world's business with its people living with human rights.

 

[Mahogany Martin]

so true, and look at mexico itself... theres right wing military groups in the south, and the north is all desert which is just horid... ive been there, to the small towns, and its not pretty. vincente fox isnt doing much to free his people, so why doesnt the united states step in there? its all part of a political web, like offender said... the us is free to trade under nafta so they have no reason to involve themselves in the well being and "freedom" of the mexicans. im taking one side of this whole issue just for arguements sake here, i dont really feel this strongly about all of this.

i think in the future you're also going to see more words being returned by bush towards latin america, fidel isnt dead yet. theres unfinished business there still, and thats a nation that is far from free right next to the states. hugo chavez is the prez of venizuala and hes not the most pro-american guy to say the least. venizuala is sitting on a lot of oil, and right now they still trade it with the states... theyre not about to stop that so long as theres not too much of a squable between the two. but then you have to look at it another way, theres democratically elected marxist governements in venizuala, bolivia and chile... in terms of bushs noble intentions for world freedom, where does that fit in? they limit their civil rights, but its done democratically?

South american nations, although agreeably very corrupted, do not go on with etnic *cleansing* and mass murdering. "You have to pick your battles".