| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Keith Wilde | | Date: | Friday, May 20, 2005 21:51:30 (+1200) | | From: | W. McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
Hi All
I question the maxim that the USA and UK are "fighting evil". The
Iraq question emphasises the anomaly in that thinking. The USA and UK armed
Saddam Hussien to the teeth during the Iran/Iraq War. Through dubious
diplomacy they also gave him the impression that they would not intervene if
he occupies Kuwait. They "liberated" Kuwait, but then ignored Hussein for
over a decade allowing him to perpetrate unspeakable attrocities on the
Kurds and Shite Muslims actually providing him with the wherewithall to do
this via clendestine dealings in the arms market. It was only when Hussein
started to invoice Iraqi oil in Euros that USA and UK decided to depose him.
There appears to be a credibility gap here. My historical research for the
Military History paper (I received and A-) I have just completed towards my
Masterate certainly inclines me to doubt the motives of the USA and UK on
the matter. I am not anti American, but my personal dealings with internal
organisations attached to Western governments does not lead me to believe
their actions are "squeaky clean". I do know that the "War on Terror" has
been used to justify exceptional increases in defence expenditure in those
countries during "Peace Time", as well as some quite draconian law
provisions to deal with "terrorists". We must not be carried away on a tide
of revulsion against the Muslim world because of the present unrest and
hostility to the USA. We need to examine financial motives behind political
and military actions. Some of the facts I have uncovered certainly cast
grave doubts about the reasons for the "War on Terror". If we are not
careful it could lead to a complete breakdown of diplomatic international
relations and a state of perpetual warfare in the world. Shades of 1984?
Bill McGunnigle
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message