Let's see who is really the ignorant one.
Don't forget that lots of the things we get from the media are not entirely true and are, more often than not, skewed, doctored and embellished for political reasons.
In other words, many things are not what they seem to be. Verily, there's usually more than what meets the eye.
Personally, I do not believe Saddam started the two wars. Rightly or wrongly, I believe he was maneuvered into starting them to serve the long-term plans of western oil interests and much more --- securing Iraqi oil for America and ensuring the safety of Israel.
The first of these two wars (1979-1988) was to have Iraq and Iran weaken each other. (Iraq was given WMD and Iran was sold modern weapons by the US.) In this war, Iraq was also acting, on behalf of the US, to stop the export of the Iranian Shi'ite revolution which was a threat to both the illegitimate (therefore shaky) House of Saud and vested US oil interests in Saudi land.
To cut a long story short, this and the Gulf War (1990-1991) gave an excuse for the US to be in the Middle East.
These wars weakened Iraq, thereby rendering it ripe for invasion and internal exploitation of its oil wealth.
But first, some more excuses and preparations must be made. As part of these, Saddam had to be made to look more dangerous and evil than he really was in order to get full support for him to be taken out by the US and allies. This was what I meant by "demonization".
Recall that in the run up to the invasion of Iraq (Mar. 2003) the media was awash with reports about what a terrible monster Saddam was. I am sure that today there are not a few Iraqis who believe that Saddam was not that bad, after all. Yeah, at least the country then was much more stable under his rule in spite of his reported excesses.
The recent invasion and occupation of Iraq is, imho, right on cue in line with the long-terms plan I mentioned earlier. After the dust is settled and equilibrium is re-established in Iraq, I believe Iran will be next on target. |
