Iīve got to get someone to explain to me why Bush is so desperate to invade Iraq because I sure donīt understand it.
It canīt be the oil. Canada supplies three times as much oil to the US as Iraq. The worldīs biggest producer of oil isnīt even in the middle east, itīs Venzuela. I donīt believe the leftīs claim that the American government is so craven that it would invade a soverign country for a non-strategic amount of oil.
It canīt be because Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. Mugabe makes Hussein look like a gentleman and the US isnīt even considering invading Zimbabwe. There are lotīs of worse dictators in the Middle east, not to mention the rest of the world. Some of the worst dictators have been the USīs 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 canīt be because of Al Quada. Husseinīs 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 donīt like him. I donīt for a minute believe that he would be supporting them. Al Quadaīs friends are (in order) Arabia, Pakastan, Iran, and Syria. Even Libya and Jordan are not high on that list, much less Iraq.
It canīt 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 canīt even hit Israel with it.
It canīt even be a vindication of Bush, Sr. The old Bush won his war, he didnīt lose anything, so he doesnīt have to be redeemed. In fact, Bush, Jr.īs determination to refight the Gulf War makes people think that the old man must have lost his war instead of winning it.
Iīm not against war in principle - some wars have to be fought (the one thing that Chamberlinīs 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 donīt see why Iraq is a war that has to be fought. Maybe there is something important that I have missed here.
Yours,
Thom