For those who are ready to do more than dip their toes in the real cold water of realism and are ready to take a plunge into the pool - this post is for you.

Realism has been touted as a necessary factor in the 'policymaking' regarding Iraq.

The most important parts of the Baker report dealt with distribution of oil profits to the masses and likewise was the biggest letdown in proposing a formula for same. They should immediately propose a distribution system that gives the largest to the government based upon realistic expenses, desired improvements, etcetera and start up a new bank whose sole purpose is to distribute oil profits to the people. Poor people with no future, little education and who have been inbred genetically for several thousands of years have a predilection towards violence in excess of those who do not have those three strikes against them.

Let's really be realistic, shall we? Iraq is all about oil. It was about oil and WMD when Saddam was inpower because OIL translates to more than enough money for WMD. So it was always about both. And OIL is about MONEY.

So Iraq is about money.

Sectarian violence is about religion, but religion is about power and power is 90%+ about MONEY.

Distributing the oil profits will immediately create a motivation for peace. The bribes from those who wish to sweep in and prop up a dictator for cheap oil will mean less and cheap EU nations won't be able to outbid the profits the people are already receiving.

At the same time the fair distribution of wealth will insure higher productivity of those same fields and also translate into field security.

And let's be realistic - this is the thing nobody else in the world wants to see while the US is the only buyer of OIL.

Do you think Iran or Saudi Arabia want to see an example of OIL profit dispersal to the masses????!

Of course not. And neither does France, Germay, Russia, China...or practically ANY other nation. Realistically they want access to the oil and DO NOT.... I repeat... DO NOT want to have to BID and PAY more to compete with the USA.

Dictators sell oil cheaper. They don't pay for education, infrastructure - they build palaces and more palaces and armies to protect themselves. They also work on WMD programs to KEEP their power against the fear of invasion.

So to be REALISTIC one has to realize that nation's interests are schizoid. The perfect example of this is in Burma and Sudan where France's National oil company, TotalFinaElf, helps pay for the genocide operations. but, hey, the oil is CHEAP!

OIL when handled as it has been, is about, exploitation, blood & death. All resources have been waged war for since time immemorial. When the neighboring tribe had a good hunt - it was raided and attacked. When the resources failed in one area the tribes moved on and took over other areas.

That, Maryanne, is REALISM. All those nations who complain loudest about the US in Iraq are so blood soaked and filthy corrupt & decrepit, that I can smell their foul stench thousands of miles away. France, Russia, Germany, Belgium - slaughterers of men, women and children one and all. Each had their own "empires" churning out death, misery and destruction only decades ago.

It's also abhorrent to me, personally, but that is also irrelevant. Until I would be in a position to dictate foreign policy, my opinion and feelings matter not a whit to the equation and the reality that has unfolded around me.

So instead o pointing the finger at Bush, who is doing what had to be done sooner or later, the left here should be encouraging the distribution of oil profits. Talking down those nations who are causing trouble and being unsupportive of the ne government - only because of their own self-interest.

Sure, I relaize most people dont have the information necessary to allow their wits to elevate their minds above the media propaganda. THAT is what I combat each time I post. I try to compensate, just a tiny bit, for all the media (owned by corporations & loyal to $$) leaves out of the Iraq news.

Violence in the middle east has always been about power vis-a-vis religion. And after 1920, it has been power vis-a-vis religion and OIL. TRUE Marxists would love the idea of the Iraqi oil profit distribution program. But the socialists, communists, etcetera in France, Belgium, Russia and now (the Eastern influence in) Germany have been real Marxists - only tyrants and self-serving folk wanting a free ride.

So they just want the US out of there, a dictator selling cheap oil and things as filthy, corrupt and repressive as they are in the nations of their other sellers.

Thats realism. That's undiluted.

And that's the end of Part 1.

"What a part 2!? Man, I hate it when Tech goes on and on like this!"

Yep. Pt. 2 This is REALISM about Bush's decision to go after Iraq. This is not the sort of realism you will hear anywhere, not in the Baker report, out of Powell's mouth or anywhere else.

In 1999 Chavez came to power in Venezuela. The US was Venezuela's largest buyer of oil. Venezuela came in handy after 1991 when Desert Storm came about. For several years - no Iraq oil. So for 8 years the US used Venezuela to compensate for the disparity of oil imports.

When Chavez came to power he threatened to close the door on US access to this oil and sell it to his idols in China, Cuba or other nations beside the USA. You will recall their were strikes and a failed coup attempt to oust Chavez. The result was Chavez clamped down harder in tyrant mode, threw lots of folks in prison, outlawed criticism and now goes around with a large army of bodyguards.

So after 9/11/2001 and with the way Saddam responded without remorse and with what data we already had about his WMD programs, and not forgetting his sponsoring of an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. while visiting Kuwait, Saddam could not be trusted. Too much was at stake. Saddam was also holding a renewed supply of oil to the US as of 2000 and so was doubly dangerous - and a doubly attractive target to topple. His power to fund WMD development and dispersal of weapons to terrorists as well as his economic leverage with the Iraqi oil spigot were threats Bush chose not to ignore.

Sure at the time we didn't know he was mainly full of bluster because he was in bed with Europe and Russia and we were nonplussed by their running to his defense - but now we know. The Saddam era is over. And it is a very good thing for the USA, although Raoul and others who monetarily profited by their nations corrupt Saddam collusion will sing another song.

Whether it is good for the Iraqi people can not be doubte either - millions - MILLIONS have already freely left to live somewhere less dangerous and make a new start. Sure, in the meanwhile ALL those various interests who want to see the US and the new government out, and a dictator back in are hard at work stirring the pot and sponsoring the violence with weapons, money, explosives, etcetera.

The solution is not more troops. The solution is not dividing the country - the solution is the equitable dispersal of $$$$ from oil sales. And for all their 'realism' that was the Baker reports failing - and the US failing. Because once the oil dispersal profit-sharing is in place, it is likely that oil costs will rise. So if you want to blame the US or BUSH, like so many here want to do so badly, there is the one legitimate complaint to levy against him - get the new Iraqi government to start dispersing oil profits.

Once that happens, the people will have a stake in stability.

MONEY=stability.

Chavez learned early on - bribing the people equates to support.

That's realism, MA. OIL & WMD despite what either conservatives or liberals say were both of equal concern to those who made the decision to oust Saddam. It wasn't either or - both were inseparable.

No, there's no part 3. For those who took the plunge congratulations. I hope reality suits you. For those who plunged in but are jumping out ASAP to grab the comforting towel of media lies, distortions, and omissions from parasites like Olbermann, Stewart and even Fox and Murdoch - that's ok too.

I understand.

Really...I do.

;-)