I have no doubts that one of the motivations behind attacking Iraq was to provide security and other ulterior motives for Israel. I mean, we give Israel $4 Billion a year in aid, and get nothing but misery in return. It's not hard to believe that we would also attack another country partly on their behalf. But, I think it's just one of many motivating factors, and not the central one. We could have attacked and occupied Lebanon if we really wanted to go to bat for Israel. The main difference is the OIL, money talks, BS walks. There's all sorts of countries we could attack and occupy, funny how it just so happens that the country with the 2nd biggest oil reserves is the one we go after. You know who really goated us into attacking Iraq? It wasn't Israel, it was Iran. Iran was the country who provided us with the false WMDs intel. We solved a lot of problems for them by taking out their arch foe, Saddam. Unfortunately for Iran, they may have opened a pandoras box, as they're the next one on our regime change list.
My problem with Gustave's analysis is that he's so heavily reliant on religion for his analysis. It's fairly easy to bring religion into wars fought in the Middle East, but how about Korea or Viet Nam. Clearly religion is not the central reason we go to war. We're not even a homogenous religious country ourselves. Then he starts talking about no planes hitting the WTC on 9/11, a statement not supported at all by the available evidence, and it really makes me wonder about his credibility?!? |
