I dont think Bush wants to take over the world, THE USA already baisicly controlls the world. Doesnt add up. The USA wants Status Quo not war's.
Hmmmm...If I'm interpreting this correctly, your thesis is the USA already "controls the world". Therefore, it "doesnt add up" that "Bush wants to take over the world", rather he just "wants the Status Quo". Since I never thought of the problem in those terms, I'm not exactly sure how to respond. Perhaps, he (or the neo-cons) think a better position on the ground (with a hand on the spigot) would better convince any recalcitrant states to acquiesce to the American hegemony. It could be argued that from a neo-con perspective, an intimidating military presence adjacent to both Syria and Iran would make both of these states more “amenable”.
I think Iraq's people will be gratefull when liberated.
Exactly which people are these. The Kurds in the north for being cynically “sold out” to the Turks, after providing a base of operations to the Americans. Perhaps the Sunnis of Baghdad, home of the ancient caliphate, will rejoice in a military occupation stretching indeterminately into the future. Or the Shi’ites of the south because of the perceived betrayal after the last Gulf war. Undoubtedly, all will be grateful for “Shock and Awe”, and wave their bloody stumps in joyous welcome.
Don't get me wrong. Saddam is a bloody unloved dictator, and approached right, we could capitalize on that. I doubt that we will any more than the Germans capitalized on the hatred of Stalin in ’41.
Again, JMO.
lurqer |
