Ken MacLeod says:
It’s recently struck me that the moderate, liberal, democratic and humane response to the build-up to the Iraq war should have been to argue for the West to arm Iraq. It’s not merely the case that invading Iraq was a distraction from fighting Al-Qaeda: it was objectively fighting on the same side as Al-Qaeda. If you’re serious about fighting Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, the last thing you’d want to do, on the face of it, is overthrow – or even weaken – one of the few regimes in the region that was capable of and interested in crushing them within its borders. But that’s what the US and UK did. The conclusion must be that they have other priorities that come higher than fighting Al-Qaeda.
But what could those priorities be…
The problem is that it isn’t enough for the US & UK to have a gov’mnt there that is interested in the same general things- they want it to be under their control.
There is a hate of local control, of anything, that is a product of the current corporate mono[loy model . It also reflects that the problems from the cold war ( continuing obviously through today) were analyzed & the conclusion was that “too much was left to chance”.
Exactly the wrong conclusions – there is too little independant control, of resources, government etc.
We are all just pawns in the hands of powerful people of the world. There is no good or bad side…it is all just a game, and unfortunately we are not the players, we are being played.
Do you believe everything they say to YOU?…. The question is, who REALLY benefits from all this Game?
Wow, cogent comment spam! What will they think of next?