by Marc S » Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:30 pm
Truth is, the US has done what it wants since WW2. Once kept in check by the Soviets/Warsaw pact during the phoney cold war until the Wall came down in '89, (when neither side really knew the capabilities of each other, regardless of all the surveillance technology) and throw in mutually assured distruction, the US has had to fight hypocritical backdoor wars propping up dodgy regimes for its own strategic/economic ends; from backing and arming Saddam in the early 80s, trying to oust the Sandinistas and having to withdraw from Vietnam after entering an extremely ill-thought out war (to name but a handful) most of these offensives have been undertaken to shore up US influence in those areas.
Iraq is about oil, make no mistake; each unfortunate US soldier killed is probably attributable to Bush (I & II), Cheney, Rumsfeld and all of the 'Haliburton' sub-companies (and shareholders) that make billions from these wars.
Whilst I, as a UK citizen would rather be allied to the US than any other world power, the US's interventionist foreign policy has made many enemies around the world over the last 40 years. Couple that with spiralling muslim fundamentalist extremism and you have a tinderbox that cannot be 'fought' conventionally. We have the same problem fermenting within the UK - the 7/7 bombings in London were carried out by UK-born islamic fundamentalists - would sending tanks and hummers and obliterating parts of Leeds and Bradford, from where they came, helped the problem? It might make some people feel better in the short term but it wouldn't change anything and would stoke the fire of these lunatics.
The other major factor is internet access to both US citizens and other countries around the world - it is possible to find all of the contributory information that led to 9/11 easily enough and much harder for the current administration to whitewash the world media as to the reasons for invading Iraq other than controlling its oil reserves. People know too much and are not stupid.
All of this 'lets kick ass' gung ho should be channelled into other more useful approaches - it hasn't worked, the only net result is trillions of wasted dollars, dead soldiers and grieving families who probably wonder what their children have died for? I can't imaging this would have happened under a Clinton government, he was too good at diplomacy. Its a shame the Bush establishment stole your election in 2000. A more measured response then may have resulted in a more tempered situation now.
Will Saddam being executed change much? Unfortunately not, Iraq will just remain in a permanent state of civil war. As a country that was set up by the west years ago it will never realise its economic potential. Whilst it is too hot and there are not enough minerals in the soil generally to grow decent food, most of the Middle East will remain gripped by fundamentalist lunatic hot heads. With a US-backed Israel stuck firmly in the midst of all this, how can peace in the area ever be acheived. Saddams death, whilst welcome, will change nothing. The other villains remain, pockets stuffed with dirty money, in the Whitehouse.
The people they endanger are you and I, flying on airliners on holiday around the world - we are the targets.
Sorry if this is somewhat heavy, but it makes a change from whether Augeri is better or worse than Perry....[/i]