Trade215,

Reading the posts following your interpretation of world events illustrates your central point - the big picture goes rumbling on while people bicker among themselves over things that don't amount to a hill of beans by comparison.

It has been suggested that Saddam Hussain's announced intention to trade oil in Euros was the last straw. Interesting times ahead.

Max... u captured the direction of the 'dance' very well mate..
and for PK and Scouts benefit, I did not detect an iota of 'I agree with B-D' in Max's post. He was simply pointing out the differences in approach, and rightly so. Max could have said all he said and been in complete disagreement with my position.

PK.. nailed ? :) hardly mate. disagreed with.. yep..I'll cop that one.

Rache.. you are clearly a kind hearted person. Beware of falling into the 'mindless bleeding heart' condition. I say 'mindless' not in a derogatory way, but in the sense that you are allowing extremely brutal and traumatic events to cloud the big picture.

In regard to Iraq, it is abundantly clear that there are forces at work which will stop at NOTHING in terms of brutality and cruelty and inhuman behavior 'just' to get their way, and I'm referring to those behind the suicide bombings, which slaughter so many every day Iraqi's. When you see a man scooping up the remains of his son, it does matter very much 'who' was responsible and why.

The question which should be asked is this:

"Who's interests are most served" by actions carried out there.

1/ The USA gets a friendly government and guaranteed supply of oil.
2/ Iran gets Shia dominance and control by proxy if they can create enough mayhem which gives the Shia majority enough momentum to slaughter the Sunnies and possibly Kurds. (who by the way, (kurds I mean) slaughtered the Assyrian Christians in their former lives) Iran stands to gain most, because if they have Iraq, they also have MOST of the worlds oil, and that's not a bad bargaining chip.

3/ Sunni Muslims who have lost and wish to regain their privileges wealth and power. (at the expense of the Shia and Kurds whom they brutally oppressed via Sadaam for decades)

None of these competing interests will result in all people being happy or safe.

It is the lure of such power, which does indeed make men mad.

Iran gains most, control oil, you control the world.

BD,

For the record, the boy I mentioned was killed in a US airstrike, not in a suicide bombing.

There are a multitude of such events we never see in the media because they don't fit the sanitised Hollywood version we are being fed. The use of White Phosphorus ("shake and bake") weapons in civilian areas is particularly horrific yet hardly mentioned.

This IS the big picture - and it will go on for at least another generation.

When American controls the Middle East, America controls the oil and that's precisely what it been about all along. "Freedom" and "liberty" are just the public relations slogans being used to justify their actions.

If the West really believe in those concepts, why do they keep supporting and sponsoring oppressive regimes in many countries around the world?

Remember who put and kept Saddam in power for all those years.

Scout,

Great to see reason and common sense prevails.

Boaz,

Your intellectual dishonesty protraying Islam can only be outperformed by Cardinal Pell.

All the best to both of you :-)

RACHE said

"If the West really believe in those concepts, why do they keep supporting and sponsoring oppressive regimes in many countries around the world?

Remember who put and kept Saddam in power for all those years."

My heart goes out to you on this one.....becasue you seem to be locked into an unrealistic sense of sentimental idealism which views international relations somewhat like the themes from Bambi. Thats not meant to annoy you, its just that well...how simple it would be if we could classify all groups as 'good guys' (white hats) and 'bad guys' (black hats)... *sigh*....

Unfortunately, what you describe as 'aggressive' regimes, are on balance determined to be 'more favorable' to US economic and military security than the alternatives. Personally, I feel such examples as the CIA engineered coup in Chili against a democratically elected leftist government were ethically disgraceful, but you may be sure of one thing "We reap....what we sow" and perhaps 911 was indeed a 'wake up' call for such adventures, while not directly related to it.

As for Sadaam. The US supported him against Iran, but he put himself in power from what I read.. by taking it and killing all who opposed him. Looking at Iraq today and the factions.. can you see anyone better ? My sympathy for the Kurds ran a bit dry when I read how they slaughtered the Assyrian Christians in times gone by.. "reaping what we sow" again...

F.H. welcome back. I am not trying to be dishonest.. (comes naturally :)..kidding.. I actually believe what I say about Islam.
Just as I believe you are a nice bloke.
Cadinal Pell ? *recoils in shock*.... at least I smile more than him :)

BOAZ_David,

The CIA helped plan the overthrow of President Kassim in 1963 by Saddam and the Ba’athists by direct involvement in the planning of the coup plus the supply of 600 names on the infamous Death List. They supported the Ba’athists because of their close links with the military.
Kassim was a US target because he took Iraq out of the (anti-Soviet) Baghdad Pact in 1958 and because he nationalised part of the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum company and resurrected a long-standing Iraqi claim to Kuwait.

This was a period where the USA was involved in the overthrow of several leaders in Latin America and Indo-China that showed any hint of independence. Tens of thousands have died as a result.

America has been directly involved in State-sponsored terrorism since 1818 when John Quincy Adams, in support of Andrew Jackson, hailed the “salutary efficacy” of terror in dealing with lawless Indians and negroes.

George Bush Senior turned his support back to Saddam’s Imperial Guard after the first Gulf War in helping put down a populist rebellion because he preferred a military overthrow of Saddam to a democratic one. This betrayal cost the lives of thousands of Iraqis and, like the betrayal of the Afghanis after the Soviet war, helps maintain anti-American sentiment in the region.
The current situation is that the US now wants more direct control of the oil than through an intermediary.

Even the rise of Fundamentalist Islam can be directly traced backed to the consequences of the ongoing US support of the Shah of Iran.

There are no “good guys” in these situations but on balance, it’s probably better to have the USA on our side than against us.

People who believe that the USA is simply working for the good of all mankind watch too much television or believe everything they read in the newspapers.

They work only in their own best interests – and rightly so.

Don’t mistake this for a typical anti-US rant. It’s just an attempt to keep a sense of balance in a debate that is far more complex than it seems.