NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of recent events, it seems like we've reached a pivotal point in our nation's history.

How will US foreign policy change over the next 50 years?

In light of recent events, it seems like we've reached a pivotal point in our nation's history.

How will US foreign policy change over the next 50 years?

Itll be the same as its been for the last fifty years...

Whatever the President wills it to be....

Executive branch has way too much power....

I believe it will gradually get less agressive.

nothing will change because you can just change the way a nation thinks overnight unless you like bomb them or something

In light of recent events

such as?

I think we'll invest a lot more time in Brazil, India, Russia, and China...they're all predicted to grow like crazy.

nothing will change because you can just change the way a nation thinks overnight unless you like bomb them or something



such as?

Oh, idk...9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Israeli assault on Lebanon, the Russian/Georgian conflict, etc.

It will become increasingly insane as my will overrides the will of the american public, and country after country falls before my sword! All shall be happy under my benevolent iron fisted reign!

Oh, idk...9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Israeli assault on Lebanon, the Russian/Georgian conflict, etc.
I think those things will get US Presidents off their "let's improve the world" trip. I'm not convinced the State Department was ever happy with the line taken as the high in the '90s started to wear off, there are still a lot of people there who know their history and their Cold War well enough to understand that realpolitik is where it's at.

I think (or rather, I hope) that the US will take the blinders off a little more. The Middle East is a place that is already full enough of ideology and religion to need the Americans to join in with their "crusade for democracy" idea or, worse, their "Israel is special" idea. So that means more meaningful engagement with Lebanon to try and strike a balance between Sunnis and Shi'ites where possible, maybe direct talks with Iran (Obama seems more likely to do that than McCain though) and maybe even pressure in the form of a stop to military aid to Israel to make the peace process move forward. The Israeli lobbies are strong, but if a President was hard-headed enough, he'd have public opinion on his side.

And then there's the rise of China, and afterwards a multipolar world with lots of powerful countries. China has basically no ideological ambitions in the world whatsoever, and is happy to trade with anyone and abstain from interfering anywhere. That's gonna take some getting used to and might accelerate a reform in the UN. Either way it'll curtail the US' ability to influence domestic policies in other countries - at some point US sanctions will simply allow Chinese businesses to get extra customers, as is already happening in Iran, Cuba or Venezuela.

With regards to Russia, this may have been a good wakeup call. Just because the USSR isn't around anymore doesn't mean that the US President can neglect his role in the big game of nukes. The way Bush didn't respond, basically because he didn't really care, was fatal and once again demonstrated that without American leadership, European foreign policy has a long way to go before it'll be of any worth.

Those I think are the main issues to be dealt with. Ideally I'd like to see more senior people from the State Department to get more freedom to shape foreign policy, rather than having people from the administration itself try to impose their goals for the term on the world stage in four year blocks.

I think those things will get US Presidents off their "let's improve the world" trip. I'm not convinced the State Department was ever happy with the line taken as the high in the '90s started to wear off, there are still a lot of people there who know their history and their Cold War well enough to understand that realpolitik is where it's at.

I think (or rather, I hope) that the US will take the blinders off a little more. The Middle East is a place that is already full enough of ideology and religion to need the Americans to join in with their "crusade for democracy" idea or, worse, their "Israel is special" idea. So that means more meaningful engagement with Lebanon to try and strike a balance between Sunnis and Shi'ites where possible, maybe direct talks with Iran (Obama seems more likely to do that than McCain though) and maybe even pressure in the form of a stop to military aid to Israel to make the peace process move forward. The Israeli lobbies are strong, but if a President was hard-headed enough, he'd have public opinion on his side.

And then there's the rise of China, and afterwards a multipolar world with lots of powerful countries. China has basically no ideological ambitions in the world whatsoever, and is happy to trade with anyone and abstain from interfering anywhere. That's gonna take some getting used to and might accelerate a reform in the UN. Either way it'll curtail the US' ability to influence domestic policies in other countries - at some point US sanctions will simply allow Chinese businesses to get extra customers, as is already happening in Iran, Cuba or Venezuela.

With regards to Russia, this may have been a good wakeup call. Just because the USSR isn't around anymore doesn't mean that the US President can neglect his role in the big game of nukes. The way Bush didn't respond, basically because he didn't really care, was fatal and once again demonstrated that without American leadership, European foreign policy has a long way to go before it'll be of any worth.

Those I think are the main issues to be dealt with. Ideally I'd like to see more senior people from the State Department to get more freedom to shape foreign policy, rather than having people from the administration itself try to impose their goals for the term on the world stage in four year blocks.

I agree and disagree.
First of all, realpolitik is practically useless nowadays. This isn't 1870, we can't reinvent the Prussian state...we won't have Bismarck as Secretary of State. In a nuclear age, realpolitik (in its traditional sense) is useless. Instead, collaborative diplomacy is the new realpolitik.

Next, American interests in Israel aren't predicated on some shadowy, sinister 'Israel Lobby.' Granted, The AIFAC is a strong institution, but American support for Israel is the product of deep-rooted Judeo-Christian ideology, collective guilt, and moralism. I recommend you read an article entitled "The Deep Roots of American Zionism" by Walter Russell Mead (it was published in the July/August 2008 edition of "Foreign Affairs").

Additionally, China is far from apathetic or unwilling to engage in foreign activity. Ever heard of a little berg named Tibet? The Chinese are intensely ideological, without a prominent sense of national purpose and strength the transformation that occurred under Deng Xiao Peng from more traditional Maoist economics to Command free market economics would have been impossible.

Lastly, European foreign policy HAS worth. The European Union is, arguably, the strongest economic force on the planet. As you know, economics overwhelmingly determine foreign policy. Furthermore, President Sarkozy of France authored the cease-fire agreement that was signed between Russia/Georgia, and Merkel of Germany led intensive talks with her counterparts in Moscow. George W. Bush was relatively quiet because he, intelligently, didn't want to pick a fight that he couldn't win.

First of all, realpolitik is practically useless nowadays. This isn't 1870, we can't reinvent the Prussian state...we won't have Bismarck as Secretary of State. In a nuclear age, realpolitik (in its traditional sense) is useless. Instead, collaborative diplomacy is the new realpolitik.
I have no idea what you mean by a traditional sense, but to me it means doing politics with achievable goals, using actually available means, with grander ideological considerations taking a back seat. Collaborative diplomacy is part of that.

Next, American interests in Israel aren't predicated on some shadowy, sinister 'Israel Lobby.' Granted, The AIFAC is a strong institution, but American support for Israel is the product of deep-rooted Judeo-Christian ideology, collective guilt, and moralism.
And yet, most Americans don't seem to care greatly or really understand why billions of their dollars are going over there. If a President stood up, told them the figures and asked them whether in the interest of a resolution of the Palestinian conflict they'd be happy to withhold some of that money, he'd be able to sell it to them.

The point is that Israel isn't the unique bastion in the Middle East that it once was. There's a broader conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites being fought out, which has profound implications for who will control the region in the future and what sorts of governments will follow the current strongmen. With the Arabs not actually threatening Israel anymore, continuing support for them does nothing but weaken America's ability to do diplomacy in the region.

I recommend you read an article entitled "The Deep Roots of American Zionism" by Walter Russell Mead (it was published in the July/August 2008 edition of "Foreign Affairs").
He's probably right in the grand scheme of things, but in terms of actual achievable politics, I still think it's quite possible for a President to overcome any such hurdles by appealing to people's hip pockets and lack of interest.

Additionally, China is far from apathetic or unwilling to engage in foreign activity. Ever heard of a little berg named Tibet?
Say what you will, but Tibet is ultimately part of China and has been even in the times of political independence. The Chinese see it as foreign policy and don't apply the same standards that they would when they deal with anyone beyond what they consider the borders of the Chinese nation. At any rate, you won't see them appealing for democracy in Africa or the freedom of the press in Central Asia.

The Chinese are intensely ideological, without a prominent sense of national purpose and strength the transformation that occurred under Deng Xiao Peng from more traditional Maoist economics to Command free market economics would have been impossible.
They certainly are, but the plans they have are for China, not for the world. US foreign policy had a degree of improving the lives of all people in the world for a century or more, and I don't see the Chinese sharing that sort of idealism.

Lastly, European foreign policy HAS worth. The European Union is, arguably, the strongest economic force on the planet. As you know, economics overwhelmingly determine foreign policy.
More urgently however, domestic politics determines foreign policy. What you saw in the first days of the conflict has been seen many times before: every European country bringing out its own statement, usually contradicting each other. Germany basically didn't say a thing, partly because of its economic interests with regards to energy.

Furthermore, President Sarkozy of France authored the cease-fire agreement that was signed between Russia/Georgia...
Which he did as President of the EU. But it didn't ask anything of the Russians, and we see the results now. What would have been needed was a strong position taken by the entire EU with enough force behind it to make Putin think twice. Instead he heard the usual: no EU foreign policy exists, and he can divide and rule as he pleases. The ceasefire took PR pressure off him and now allows Russian troops to rework the politics of the region to their liking.

...and Merkel of Germany led intensive talks with her counterparts in Moscow.
And was sent back home without results (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,572726,00.html). Merkel is doing a better job of dealing with Russia than her predecessor (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,572686,00.html), but they still know she can't do jack, and they treat her accordingly.

George W. Bush was relatively quiet because he, intelligently, didn't want to pick a fight that he couldn't win.
His job was the same as that of US Presidents during the Cold War: say what the common line is, and push it forcefully. If no such line exists, he was to make sure that it does.

In no small part due to his previous failures, he was either unwilling or unable to do so, and left the western response basically non-existent.

I have no idea what you mean by a traditional sense, but to me it means doing politics with achievable goals, using actually available means, with grander ideological considerations taking a back seat. Collaborative diplomacy is part of that.


And yet, most Americans don't seem to care greatly or really understand why billions of their dollars are going over there. If a President stood up, told them the figures and asked them whether in the interest of a resolution of the Palestinian conflict they'd be happy to withhold some of that money, he'd be able to sell it to them.

The point is that Israel isn't the unique bastion in the Middle East that it once was. There's a broader conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites being fought out, which has profound implications for who will control the region in the future and what sorts of governments will follow the current strongmen. With the Arabs not actually threatening Israel anymore, continuing support for them does nothing but weaken America's ability to do diplomacy in the region.


He's probably right in the grand scheme of things, but in terms of actual achievable politics, I still think it's quite possible for a President to overcome any such hurdles by appealing to people's hip pockets and lack of interest.


Say what you will, but Tibet is ultimately part of China and has been even in the times of political independence. The Chinese see it as foreign policy and don't apply the same standards that they would when they deal with anyone beyond what they consider the borders of the Chinese nation. At any rate, you won't see them appealing for democracy in Africa or the freedom of the press in Central Asia.


They certainly are, but the plans they have are for China, not for the world. US foreign policy had a degree of improving the lives of all people in the world for a century or more, and I don't see the Chinese sharing that sort of idealism.


More urgently however, domestic politics determines foreign policy. What you saw in the first days of the conflict has been seen many times before: every European country bringing out its own statement, usually contradicting each other. Germany basically didn't say a thing, partly because of its economic interests with regards to energy.


Which he did as President of the EU. But it didn't ask anything of the Russians, and we see the results now. What would have been needed was a strong position taken by the entire EU with enough force behind it to make Putin think twice. Instead he heard the usual: no EU foreign policy exists, and he can divide and rule as he pleases. The ceasefire took PR pressure off him and now allows Russian troops to rework the politics of the region to their liking.


And was sent back home without results (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,572726,00.html). Merkel is doing a better job of dealing with Russia than her predecessor (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,572686,00.html), but they still know she can't do jack, and they treat her accordingly.


His job was the same as that of US Presidents during the Cold War: say what the common line is, and push it forcefully. If no such line exists, he was to make sure that it does.

In no small part due to his previous failures, he was either unwilling or unable to do so, and left the western response basically non-existent.

I respect our differences in opinion. That said...

First, Realpolitik in its "traditional" sense refers to what was characteristically malicious, violent foreign policy. The Ems Dispatch, the annexation of Schleiswig-Holstein, Brudeskrieg, The Franco-Prussian war...all of which would have resulted in mushroom clouds nowadays. For instance, if the US were to use Realpolitik, it would use military force to take over Saudi Arabia (a militarily inferior nation), and consequently give its citizenry cheap oil. This would increase American buying power, boost the greenback, and put us on top of the currency game again. Perhaps US Diplomacy would fall in place somewhere, but historically speaking...Prussian, Realpolitik, Diplomacy meant manipulation and humiliation. In essence, Realpolitik (Note: don't differentiate between Prussian Realpolitik and 'other' Realpolitik...it IS a German concept, coined by Bismarck) is ineffective and probably stupid in a modern context.

Next, according to a 2006 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 53% of Americans favor our economic, diplomatic, and militaristic relationship with Israel. Keep in mind that only 1.8% of the American population is Jewish.
That said, I entirely agree that we could be doing a lot more than we are in this volatile region.

Also, the point I was trying to make with China's foreign policy objectives (re-worded for clarity and specificity) is this: China has restructured itself economically and domestically in order to satisfy a larger foreign policy objective. What is this objective? Economic and political pre-eminence. The Chinese own a plurality of our national debt, and enjoy an unbelievable growth-rate. Furthermore, they've used foreign policy in Darfur (where they're building oil and weapons interests) to further their domestic growth. You mention an absence of idealism in Chinese foreign policy. Idealism isn't always benevolent (to believe so is fallacy). Hitler was an idealist, but in a twisted relative way. Idealism in China is limited to complacency with the omnipotent state, and economic growth.

Moving on to Europe. You've said that there's an absence of foreign policy, particularly due to the silence that followed Russian aggression. Guess what? That might be their foreign policy if they have vested economic interests in Russia! Foreign policy doesn't mean putting your head into the middle of every single event. In fact, American foreign policy was isolationist for a number of years...does that mean we didn't have a foreign policy? Certainly not. Foreign policy reflects a nation's best interests by way of international interaction...therefore, silence could be in the best interests of a European nation that doesn't want to have a gas shortage. Also, I spent a lot of time in Europe earlier this summer...in France I bought a FOREIGN POLICY PUBLICATION entitled Le Monde Diplomatique. Apparently, they DO have a foreign policy.

Lastly, if you want a renaissance of Cold War diplomacy...you need to seriously reconsider your beliefs. Let's look at what happened during the Cold War...the Soviet Union built a buffer zone in response to a sense of vulnerability. The US implements the Truman Doctrine, preventing Soviet revolutionaries from taking over Greece and Turkey. We form NATO. The USSR forms the Warsaw Pact. Everyone builds weapons. The Korean War jades our trust in China. We engage in Brinksmanship with Khruschev, everyone almost dies in the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Berlin Wall is built. Everyone is distrustful of everyone else. Prague Spring. The Brezhnev Doctrine (Everyone almost dies again). Vietnam. SALT I. Afghanistan...prompting the cancellation of SALT II. A bunch of Soviet leaders die. The Iran Contra Affair. Gorbachev supports perestroika and glasnost. Tear down this wall. Everyone finds independence. The Russians abandon communism. Eastern Europe's broke.
So, as you can see, our Cold War policy practically produced holocaust on several occasions. Not to mention, we spent ourselves into a deficit on military expenses. Getting along with Russia is a lot cheaper in the long run.

It will become increasingly insane as my will overrides the will of the american public, and country after country falls before my sword! All shall be happy under my benevolent iron fisted reign!

Whatever you say, Dr. Nefarious.

Actually I prefer the name Professor Nutjob.

First, Realpolitik in its "traditional" sense refers to what was characteristically malicious, violent foreign policy.
Bismarck would have disagreed passionately.

(Note: don't differentiate between Prussian Realpolitik and 'other' Realpolitik...it IS a German concept, coined by Bismarck)
Given that I've got Bismarck's memoirs sitting in my shelf, in German, I know pretty well what exactly he was doing. That his foreign policies involved a fair bit of violence was a reflection of the times and the fact that given Prussia's situation that was the best way to reach the goals he wanted to reach. The US doesn't have the same means available, but that doesn't mean the idea of reaching attainable goals with them, rather than being infused with some overarching ideological line, is out of the picture.

In short: ideology says the US shouldn't talk to Iran. Realpolitik says it should.

Next, according to a 2006 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 53% of Americans favor our economic, diplomatic, and militaristic relationship with Israel. Keep in mind that only 1.8% of the American population is Jewish.
Hey, we all know how politics works. What really needs to be asked is what they think about specific Israeli policies - and more importantly, they need to be asked whether they'd be ready to use the leverage provided by the US' relationship with Israel in order to end the conflict. Frame it in the right language and voters would be falling over themselves.

http://www.aafusa.org/Rendering%20public%20opinion%20irrelevant.htm (sorry about the source, the article itself comes from Salon, but the website wants you to sign up)
Similarly, when asked "How well do you think Israel is doing its part in the effort to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict," citizens around the world, by a large margin, believe that Israel is doing either "not very well" or "not well at all" (54% -- compared to 23% that say it's doing "very well" or "somewhat well"). And there, too, that worldwide view corresponds to American public opinion as well. 59% of Americans say Israel is doing either "not very well" or "not well at all" -- compared to only 30% that say it's doing "very well" or "somewhat well." And Palestinians don't fare much better worldwide (38-49%) and fare worse in the U.S. (15-75%).

Also, the point I was trying to make with China's foreign policy objectives (re-worded for clarity and specificity) is this: China has restructured itself economically and domestically in order to satisfy a larger foreign policy objective.
Or, maybe, it did it for a domestic objective, namely to end famines and poverty.

What is this objective? Economic and political pre-eminence. The Chinese own a plurality of our national debt, and enjoy an unbelievable growth-rate. Furthermore, they've used foreign policy in Darfur (where they're building oil and weapons interests) to further their domestic growth.
That's a non sequitur. China wants to grow, and it needs the resources of the world to do it. It will do business with whoever is in charge of them, and they don't attach any strings.

That's what I said, and that's what will make US foreign policy more complicated, because it means that the strings the US tends to attach to things are no longer as pressing for those undemocratic or leftist countries.

You mention an absence of idealism in Chinese foreign policy. Idealism isn't always benevolent (to believe so is fallacy). Hitler was an idealist, but in a twisted relative way. Idealism in China is limited to complacency with the omnipotent state, and economic growth.
In China, but as far as Chinese relations with the rest of the world are concerned, the party has made it abundantly clear that they don't care what goes on beyond their borders politically, as long as it doesn't affect what they consider Chinese internal affairs, including the inflow of input materials.

Moving on to Europe. You've said that there's an absence of foreign policy, particularly due to the silence that followed Russian aggression. Guess what? That might be their foreign policy if they have vested economic interests in Russia!
That may be true. It quite clearly isn't what they want to do though, given that they do have partnership agreements with Georgia as a potential future member of NATO and EU, and European voters obviously also don't like Russia one bit, but it may be that saying nothing is European foreign policy.

In which case it may exist, but be completely irrelevant for what is going on in the world.

Apparently, they DO have a foreign policy.
France does, but the EU doesn't. France by itself can yell all it wants at Putin and he won't care. So can Germany, Britain or Belgium for that matter.

The only way Putin will start caring (and even that isn't guaranteed) is if the EU actually does what it keeps saying it would do, and take a common foreign policy stance. That is not happening, and this situation now, given that it is of absolutely vital importance to the future of Russia and its neighbours, and therefore the future of the EU as well, should have been the time when it did.

So, as you can see, our Cold War policy practically produced holocaust on several occasions. Not to mention, we spent ourselves into a deficit on military expenses. Getting along with Russia is a lot cheaper in the long run.
Certainly. But getting along is not the same as allowing them to run roughshot in countries with democratically elected governments, simply because those countries happened to have been on a map in the same colour as Russia back in the day.

I'm not saying there should be a new Cold War, I'm saying that something unacceptable is happening here, and it is in the West's interest to do something about it. Given that the perpetrator in question just so happens to be Russia, the methods for dealing with them doing bad things are already established. So I say: use them. Putin insists on playing empire, so there really is nothing wrong with illustrating to him the consequences of that particular game - and given that Russian politicians today are businessmen rather than ideologues, that would be enough.

They certainly are, but the plans they have are for China, not for the world. US foreign policy had a degree of improving the lives of all people in the world for a century or more, and I don't see the Chinese sharing that sort of idealism.

.... Improving the lives of all people in the world.... Idealism

It`s a joke. Right?

In light of recent events, it seems like we've reached a pivotal point in our nation's history.

How will US foreign policy change over the next 50 years?

I believe and hope that we will continue to press for democracy and human rights throughout the world forever and ever.

I believe and hope that we will continue to press for democracy and human rights throughout the world forever and ever.

Irak? I really hope not...

Irak? I really hope not...

You do not want democracy and human rights in Iraq???:rolleyes:

You do not want democracy and human rights in Iraq???:rolleyes:

Yes, that means no usa conquerors killing people there...

Yes, that means no usa conquerors killing people there...

Ok troll, the USA is killing terrorists. The terrorists killed and torured people. The USA is the good guy here and the terrorists are the bad guys. I also would not call terrorists who tortured and killed journalists and others "people" I would instead call them "monsters".

Ok troll, the USA is killing terrorists. The terrorists killed and torured people. The USA is the good guy here and the terrorists are the bad guys. I also would not call terrorists who tortured and killed journalists and others "people" I would instead call them "monsters".

I know that you need to insult me because you don`t have arguments, but don't be so obvious ...

Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq to control their oil reserves...

And no, Saddam didn`t had any mass destruction weapon nor relation with Al Qaeda...

Yeah, right, the usa conquerors killed thousands of "terrorists"...

Ok troll, the USA is killing terrorists. The terrorists killed and torured people. The USA is the good guy here and the terrorists are the bad guys. I also would not call terrorists who tortured and killed journalists and others "people" I would instead call them "monsters".

I find your use of these terms amusing.

Ok troll, the USA is killing terrorists. The terrorists killed and torured people. The USA is the good guy here and the terrorists are the bad guys. I also would not call terrorists who tortured and killed journalists and others "people" I would instead call them "monsters".

What an amazingly simple world you live in. Too bad it has no resemblance to reality.

The US has done some shitty things in Iraq but compared to what the insurgents are doing, it's rather tame.

I know that you need to insult me because you don`t have arguments, but don't be so obvious ...

Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq to control their oil reserves...

And no, Saddam didn`t had any mass destruction weapon nor relation with Al Qaeda...

Yeah, right, the usa conquerors killed thousands of "terrorists"...

What are you talking about? Saddam Hussein ("SH") did not let the UN inspect for WMDs. He though that nobody would force his hand. This was apprently a move to make Iran think he had WMDs so that he could have the power of WMDs without actually having them.

He also was a very bad dictator. It is undisputed that he used torture and murder. The terrorists in Iraq also used torture and murder.

Why woud there be any major shift in US foreign policy?

The basic strategy will remain the same, won't it? Use any means necessary to gain control of the resources and economies of whatever nation the US government can control, stay involved in at least one military conflict, and otherwise serve US economic interests.

Concepts such as human rights, civil and social freedoms, etc. will remain secondary, if considered at all.

What are you talking about? Saddam Hussein ("SH") did not let the UN inspect for WMDs. He though that nobody would force his hand. This was apprently a move to make Iran think he had WMDs so that he could have the power of WMDs without actually having them.

He also was a very bad dictator. It is undisputed that he used torture and murder. The terrorists in Iraq also used torture and murder.

Did Irak have WMDs? Yes ___ No ____

(Hint: NO)

Does Irak have oil? Yes ___ No ___

(Hint: YES)

Did Irak have WMDs? Yes ___ No ____

(Hint: NO)

Does Irak have oil? Yes ___ No ___

(Hint: YES)

Did Iraq try to assassinate a former president?
Did Iraq not permit UN inspections for WMDs and promote the misinformation that they did?
Did Iraq kill civillians?
Did Iraq engage in torture?
Were Saddam and his two sons psychopaths with absolute political power?
Did Iraq break its treaty commitments?
Did Iraq violate the oil for food program?
Did Iraq not play nicely with the Israelis?

I know that you need to insult me because you don`t have arguments, but don't be so obvious ...

Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq to control their oil reserves...
.

and how much Iraqi oil have we used for our own purposes ???
(0)
I mean now would be the time to use their oil right ?
while we have military there.
instead of going deeper in debt trying to rebuild their country.

If the Iraq war was solely about oil we would have taken Saddam's offer to only sale oil to the US and at discount prices.

instead of the current system where the Iraqi government sells the oil at market prices and uses the profits to live like kings.


not that I am for the iraq invasion I would have much better taken Saddam's offer.