On 23 Aug 2002 at 9:46, Blunderov wrote:
> [Blunderov]
> Talking of probable; FWIW, this is what I think is really going on.
> The US is gravely concerned, whether justifiably or not, that Hussein
> might use nukes against not the US, but against Israel. (This, BTW
> might fit your postulated "Saladin complex" idea more closely.)
>
> Everyone knows what would happen next. Therefore the question arises
> as to how to prevent this possibility.
>
> Meanwhile back at the cabanas, it might not be unproblematic to
> persuade an American electorate that they need to pay for and
> prosecute a war on Israel's behalf. Many other groupings, not least
> the UN, might have reservations too. Therefore, if there is to be a
> war to prevent the above mentioned scenario, it would be helpful if
> America, and as much as the rest of the world as possible, perceived
> that war as being in America's own direct and immediate interests,
> without any Israeli flies to interfere with the unction.
>
> And this is the source of all the nonsense. The sleight of hand which
> is used to achieve this misdirection is: "If Osama could do this, then
> so could Saddam".
>
> Not everyone is fooled by this.
>
> Warm regards
>
The problem with this analysis is that Saddam is at heart a secularist,
who thinks not in transcendental religious terms, but in immanent
strategic and tactical ones. He uses the shibboleths of religious faith,
and their self-proclaimed holy warriors, to further his nonreligious and
territorially aggrandizemental concerns, much as Hitler did. If he
succeeded in destroying the state of Israel, with or without help, he
would de facto militarily own the Arabian Peninsula, and that ownership
would grant him a stranglehold on the global economy. That is his
global game, and the reason he is willing to bet such exorbitant stakes
is because the reward is practically all-encompassing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT