Drlee wrote:Because all of Christendom sees the rise of Islam as a threat. Because the US was attacked by Saudi Arabia and they were afraid that if they did not go along with this stuff that the US would take SA and thence the oil. Because nobody liked Saddam and he was a good scapegoat to put the other actors in the reason on notice.
I think this was a good honest attempt at stabbing at the truth, but I think you use distorted logic here. The first sentence I don't really have much to say on because I've really never even so much as attended a church service, let alone understood Christian sentiments, so I've nothing to comment on that one. The second sentence starts off good, but then sort of flips the script suddenly. To clarify are you saying the Saudi's attacked the US on 9/11? Because if so, I agree it's a good theory and evidence-based, but the logic of the second clause of the sentence doesn't follow the first, for me. The Saudis attacked the US and therefore had to go along with what the US wanted? I don't think so.
I think that what you are tapping into involves loyalties and associations which are largely supranational. Sort of, the Saudis had the Americans by the balls. That's not to say the Americans were thence manipulated to do the Saudi's bidding, but rather that interests were such as that the US couldn't react in such a way as you suggest, without pissing in a lot of lemonades of the American ruling class (and that this would have been a calculated aspect, on the part of the Saudis). I'm not planting a flag on this or anything, as we really don't have the facts, and this is just an example of whimsical speculation. But I just didn't catch a logical train in your whimsical speculation. You can elaborate of course if you wish.
The last sentence characterizing Saddam as a scapegoat seems logical. Taking the sentence as a whole, it seems you mean to say that Iraq and the assassination of Saddam (it was a kangaroo court, after a military capture, so I reckon assassination is a relevant description) was a demonstration to others. It may have been. I tend to think it was more about seeking to bring the territory of Iraq under a sphere of domination. This has been a longstanding trend in the policy moves of Western imperialists. But again, these are just whims.