By casual reckoning “[Do you mean] the opportunity for democracy we are trying to provide for the powerless in Arab countries [?].” is at least the 5th reason given for invading Iraq, so far.
First it was Iraq has WMDs, we couldnÂ’t find them and we quite looking. Then it was they were developing WMDs, couldnÂ’t find any sign of that either. Then it was Iraq was attempting to buy WMDs, couldnÂ’t find evidence of that either. Then there was Iraq provided support for Al Qaeda, the 9/11 commission found no evidence of any link.
Considering how well it is going, they are throwing bouquets instead of bombs, we are being greeted with open arms instead of small arms and IED, we will probably be there long enough to come up with a plausible reason, eventually.
The Idea that it is now a war to spread democracy is pure BS, we prop up dictatorships that have produced these very terrorists. The Madrasas, that educated the Taliban, were in Pakistan. We recognized “President” Musharrah; he was originally “elected” by leading a coup to over throw a popularly elected government. Then there is Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 high-jackers were born, that has been holding open and free elections since, well never. Lets not forget Egypt; their elections are a real model of open and fair. Then there is China, while not linked to this wave of terrorism, they are the biggest exporter of goods to us, we even granted them most favored nation trading status, after they “fixed” their human rights abuse problems, it is always a cliff hanger when ever they have an election, shows what free elections and free trade are all about.
Considering that every reason given by then, Secretary of State Colin Powell, for invading Iraq, in his speech before the UN, has been proven to be un-true, and in some cases it could be strongly suggested were intentionally misleading, an Arab or Muslim might conclude that the Invasion of Iraq by the western allies was but again part of another far larger campaign against their society and culture and to control their resources.
In 1951 Mossedegh was elected prime minister of Iran, the Iranian parliament then nationalized, the British owned oil industry; the British instituted a blockade and forced Mossedegh from power and the Shah, assumed power again. However, Mossedegh returned in 1952 and forced the Shah into exile, it was assumed that Mossedegh would declare a republic, but within days, with the help of the CIA the Shah was restored. In return, in 1954, the Shah granted an international consortium, 40% British, 40% American, 14% Dutch, and 6% French control of IranÂ’s oil industry for 25 years. The profits were not shared with the Iranians they received only a small royalty. This went on until the Iranians ousted the Shah.
If you were a disenfranchised Arab, and saw how your leadership had sold out to the west, you would probably become nationalistic, and being political dissent is not allowed, the only place where there can be expressions of opposition is the Mosque. Being your oppressive leadership was installed by the west and is kept in power by the west, the west is probably not your friend.
History has taught the people of the middle east that the west will invade, and take what it wants, we have done it for over a 1000 years now, so if a goodly number of Americans are less than certain about our motives for invading Iraq, it is not hard to imagine that middle easterners are even more skeptical of our motives.
While I do not condone terrorism, these people are smart enough, after all they made modern mathematics possible, to realize that it would be impossible to directly confront a western army. Desperate times require desperate measures. Who played a major role in maintaining Saddam in power, we did, is it any wonder they do not trust us in the slightest.
Life is no joke but funny things happen
jon
Poll