| |
|
Something tells me Bush will do anything to stay in power as well. Just a theory mind you.
I think people tend to forget that Saddam has been around for a while, like since 1968 or something. He didn't just spring out of nowhere to menace Kuwait in 1990. And truth be told, we've incited the Kurds to rebellion a couple of times now, though we've also duped them as well (in 1973, during the October War between the Arabs and Israelis). Check out William Blum's "The CIA, A Forgotten History" for the full account of how we led the Kurds on and then betrayed them at the last minute. I only hope after the Gulf War that the Kurds have the common sense to ignore us when we come around looking for their support yet again.
I also think that when people start going on about how its "all about oil" are missing the point. Oil plays a part in our interest in that part of the world, but its a bit more encompassing than that. It has alot more to do with spheres of influence, strategic corridors, shipping lanes, new venture capital investments (someone has to rebuild Iraq, after all) and new markets. Look at how the Balkans broke up: they fractured along lines relating to various spheres of influence , sometimes along ethnic lines, sometimes along religious lines, but always corresponding to some source of outside interest in the region (US, German/EU, Russian). The hot-spots of the Middle East are no less fractious. Iraq and Israel have internal divisions that are being exploited to maximum gain by outside interests who wish to obtain a substantial foothold in the region. I won't go as far as to say that the US and the EU are or are going to be waging "war by proxy" in the region, as it appears that the US, with the absence of the Cold War, is eschewing its traditional covert warfare methods and replacing them with direct military involvement in the global hot spots that center around areas corresponding to desired spheres of influence as mentioned above. Mind you, this is simply based on my own observation of global events. I don't pretend to have a monopoly on the truth and I distrust the left as much as I distrust the right. I'm interested in the truth, not political grandstanding, sloganeering or pissing matches. When someone like Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell start voicing concern about invading Iraq, I think we ought to listen. Not because I happen to agree with them on their political views, but because I recognize that they are experts in their field. Politcians exorrting us to war should be questioned regardless of who they are or what the reasons are for going to war. Had we done that more often, history would have taken quite a different turn. I mean, how many times have we gone to war, only to find out years later that our reasons for doing so were tenuous at best, and utter lies at worst. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident? How about the "sinking" of the USS Maine before the Spanish-American war? And now the illusive nuclear facility in Iraq. Will we find out after the bombings have ceased that it was an infant formula factory like the one we bombed in Sudan in 1998? ("Well, we THOUGHT it was a chemical weapons factory...Ooops.")
Just my 2 cents. No doubt the flames will fly, better get that asbestos suit ready. |
|
|
