Replies

I wouuld say Steyn has hit the nail on the head. Except for the last part about French "machinations" screwing up the last Gulf War. It wasn't a plot. The coalition Bush I put together included almost every ME state. And their conditions to being part of the coalition were that Kuwait only was to be liberated and that Sadaam stayed. France had nothing to do with it (though I am sure they wanted that outcome as well.)

But Steyn touches on something here. Why would France and Germany want to help America dominate the Middle East? States act in their own best interest. Steyn slipped up. He said if Iraq messed with France they would be a cinder the next day. Well- it seems France and Germany both seem to think that Iraq is no threat to them at all. But we do? Or do we really? Or is Sadaam a convenient boogeyman that we can topple and occupy a strategic country in the ME for future wars or muscle flexing?

9/11, WMD's, Sadaam is a bad guy- that is why we are going in? The men around Bush were calling for Sadaam's head before 9/11.

The French are acting in their best interest. And we are acting in what we see as our best interest (as an empire.) But it certainly has nothing to do with morality or spreading freedom (that is an afterthought.) I have no doubt that Iraqis will be dancing in the streets once Amrican troops take Bagdhad and Sadaam in dead or living Somalia with General Adid. So too did the Kuwaitis. But once Sadaam is gone so too is the identity of being an "Iraqi" and that is where the problems will start.

The French are acting in their best interest

As we all know, most of the French are in a relationship with Iraq "for the oil."

And, Jacques Chirac has been named Sheikh Iraq, because he studied Arabic and was so friendly with Saddam, in the 70's.

But once Sadaam is gone so too is the identity of being an "Iraqi" and that is where the problems will start.

Hmmm...not sure what you're trying to say here...the U.S. does not act as an "Empire" -- Was the identity of being French gone after WW II ?? or German ?? Why haven't we "taken over" Mexico (oil and plenty of agriculture there), or even Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands ? If we are so determined to have a power base in the ME, why did Bush (41) bow to pressure and agree to leave Saddam in power, when it would have taken very little to push further and remove him, despite the whining of the press and others ("Highway of Death" crap, etc.)...

Except for the last part about French "machinations" screwing up the last Gulf War

The word he used was subverting, and its true. They signed all these clandestine oil deals , through the UN auspices, with Sadaam. They and the Russians dont want war for mercantile reasons. These "deals" are a subversion of the ceasefire agreement.