I've got to get someone to explain to me why Bush is so desperate to invade Iraq because I sure don't understand it.
It can't be the oil. Canada supplies three times as much oil to the US as Iraq. The world's biggest producer of oil isn't even in the middle east, it's Venzuela. I don't believe the left's claim that the American government is so craven that it would invade a soverign country for a non-strategic amount of oil.
It can't be because Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. Mugabe makes Hussein look like a gentleman and the US isn't even considering invading Zimbabwe. There are lot's of worse dictators in the Middle east, not to mention the rest of the world. Some of the worst dictators have been the US's best friends. In fact, there has been more than one democratically elected government overthrown by the CIA so that brutal dictators who are friendly to the US can be installed.
It can't be because of Al Quada. Hussein's is the only government in the Middle East (including Israel) that is determined to be independent of religion. He has never liked Islamic fundumentalists like Al Quada and they don't like him. I don't for a minute believe that he would be supporting them. Al Quada's friends are (in order) Arabia, Pakastan, Iran, and Syria. Even Libya and Jordan are not high on that list, much less Iraq.
It can't be because of weapons of mass destruction. Even if he has them, he cannot use them. The first time he uses any kind of nuclear, chemical or biological weapon, he will be demonstrating that he has them and then all the countries of the industrialized world, not just the US, will be invading Iraq. He has been manouvered into a position where weapons of mass distruction are useless to him, whether he has them or not. And a missle with a range of 180 Km instead of 150 Km is hardly the doomsday weapon that will turn the balance of power to his favour - he can't even hit Israel with it.
It can't even be a vindication of Bush, Sr. The old Bush won his war, he didn't lose anything, so he doesn't have to be redeemed. In fact, Bush, Jr.'s determination to refight the Gulf War makes people think that the old man must have lost his war instead of winning it.
I'm not against war in principle - some wars have to be fought (the one thing that Chamberlin's appeasment demonstrated beyond all doubt was that the Allies had the moral high ground in WWII; there was no other choice than war) - I just don't see why Iraq is a war that has to be fought. Maybe there is something important that I have missed here.
Yours,
Thom