Ah well, my fellow Americans, my country right or wrong, but my country, -- we has been attacked. That any fool can see. Now we don't rightly know who dun it, but there are a few handy suspects, of whom, if we can't prove they did it, or anything else for that matter, they might as well have done it, so that's good enough for me. And let's face it my fellow Americans, we gotta strike back, and those people jes don' like us. Now there is a lotta talk about who we gonna strike, and how and how much. There are jes so many of them out there that it fairly has us boggled. We jes can't decide. But rest assured my fellow Americans, even if we don't ever figure out who exactly did it, there are a lot of sons of bitches out there who are gonna be damn sorry they ever did anything to make us suspect them in the first place. Will you hand me down that neutron bomb there, please ..?
I am sure I don't know who did it. No matter how many Yemenis were alleged to take part who may have known former Lieutenants of Osama I cannot see that the US has any proof of his exact complicity. They have not proved anything. Probably does not mean for sure. Let me explain. Herman Heyderich, one of Germany's most famous Jews, disliked Stalin intensely and thought he could trick him. So he forged several letters and let them fall into Soviet Intelligence's hands. They looked real and confirmed Stalin's worst suspicions. His officers were revolting. And it would be to their credit if they did, after all. So he murdered 30,000 of them. This helped immeasurably when Germany took on the Soviets in the field as their army, without experienced officers, was that much easier to beat.
We know Osama does not like the US. He is opposed to them. But so are a lot of other people in the area. Are we to believe that Libya, Syrian, Sudan, Somalia, and Iraq were asleep and did not have people with reason, ability and money to carry out these actions? Could these people also not have been totally independent of any country per se? Could a Somalian warlord carried out the Embassy Bombing? Could Iraqui intelligence hired Yemenis to carry out the raids on the SS Cole? If it were Iraquis, could they have framed bin Laden? Well If it were them, then they had bloody well better try. As to not do so would reveal an act of war.
We do not have any survivors. If I were the Iraquis that would be a prerequisite built in to the bomb trigger mechanism.
bin Laden has alleged that it seemed like the WTC bombing was carried out for "personal reasons". If he knew the Iraquis were behind it, what would he say? Who would gave personal reasons to bomb the WTC? Assuming he not just being clever. As I pointed out before, the Palestinians did not have the lead time if it was retaliation for the spate of assassinations the Israelis were carrying out. Unless they could tap a source of suicidal pilots on a moment's notice. They have all stated (Palestinians) that outside the home territories it was against the rules to fight. But perhaps they thought assassination was against the rules too, not that are too many rules to go by in that sort of thing. But who would have no rules and a big budget, lots of time to cause trouble and be kind of mad? Was bin Laden that mad?
The simple fact is that the US has few friends over there. When it goes looking for enemies it is likely to find lots. Habitually the US has stayed out of war. Vietnam was departure. It was an adventure. Korea had reason. Vietnam was an attempt gone wrong. If the US goes in anywhere in the ME they had better know exactly what the target is, what they hope to gain by hitting it, and more importantly how to avoid developing these kind of targets in the future.
At one time in the ME's recent history, it appeared that moderate governments might develop. Unfortunately we did nothing to encourage this as the gov't seemed to want to control their own resources to the detriment of Amoco and BP. Like the Soviet Union of the past, this former possibility of stability has now faded into a fog of uncertainty that ruled the era of the cold war. The direction of increasingly polarized and hostile feudal religious empires seems to loom as a constant threat divided amongst sovereign nations allied in one opposition, that has seeming right: that of defiance of expression of the US of any unilateral right to promote its interests in good government in those countries.
How many years though, must we face the intransigence of extreme and oppressive states arising out of the ashes of the turmoil of successive repressive and corrupt regimes?
If I were asked what I would do to stop the threat of individual bombings by terrorist, personal, country sponsored or otherwise, that came spontaneously out of perhaps 8 nations, I would say that I would have to invade them all. There does not seem to be any other solution, if indeed invading is a solution. It is if and only if the population can be subdued by war. Another solution is to expel all persons that were of the nationality of the nations. That hardly seems fair as it is unlikely that these expatriates are here because they agree with the policies or lifestyle of the home country, and they cannot all be spies.
Finally there is the question of who is right. Is the US "right" in the ME? Is the an ME country "right" to foster anti-American sentiment in its schools? Who gets to throw the first stone? I simply don't know. If the US walked away, war would flourish in the ME. It has at times. We ourselves have warred for oil in Kuwait.
Finally there is nothing that can be conceded or signed or agreed upon because of the WTC. No one has come forward and said, "OK, we won't do this anymore if you will just do this and this." And even if they did, how would you hold them to it? Do we sign a treaty with the Hamburg Islamic Student's Union, every Sheik with a tent, a flurry of Generals in several Armies, some self appointed warlords, the mayors of several towns, and everybody's sister and their dog just to be safe? What is it they put up for ransom if the treaty is broken by a distant cousin, who did not sign? Who accepts responsibility, not to mention love, respect, and civility? Will they accept war instead? If it is no nation that has promoted this, then it is incumbent on all nations to find out who did it. It is definitely in their best interests. It is in the best interests of any individual out there amongst the subject nationalities to illuminate the issue truthfully. To hide would perpetuate a possible infamy.
EC<:-} |
