Greetings, Bethany. This is an excellent forum, and deserves new membership/posters. Thank-you for becoming involved.
You bring up a controversial issue, but it's one that affects us all (even someone like me, who does not live in the United States.) I'm a Canadian citizen, and am married to an American - thus it affects me in two different ways. On one hand, our country is extremely dependent (economically) on trade with the United States (thus what happens in American affects us tremendously.) Also, my marriage ties me to what happens in America on a familial level (besides the fact that I have blood family who also live in the United States, some of them even becoming American citizens some time ago.)
On one hand, taking the official version of things for granted, I see some justification for America "going to war." However, my problem is that I am not totally convinced of the "official version" of the situation.
Some people see folks like me as being "paranoid" or dismiss this as "conspiracy theorism", as if it is so crazy to believe that governments often lie to their citizens, or hide their ultimate motives in patriotic/alarmist garb. Truth be told, if two or more people conspire (and look up the meaning of that word if you want clarity), you have a conspiracy. And since Bush Jr. entered office (and even his very election was not a clear victory; ultimatly he was installed by courts, and not a clear victory at the polls), a conspiracy has been afoot, motivated by shady persons in the crowds he and his family runs with. Just look at his cabinet; it's a whose who list of corporate suits with interests tied to the Middle East, whether due to petroleum interests, Zionism, or both. And this conflict with Iraq ties into those two things; oil, and Zionist pretensions. And the solution to both? A "Pax Americana", that will put an end to America as a constitutional republic (though that was a process in the works for decades well before Bush Jr. entered office), and the beginning of a Washington based global Empire.
I will definatly not argue that Saddam Hussein isn't a sociopath, with plenty of innocent blood on his hands. However it is extremely niave to think that this is what the American gov't cares about. Let us just consider some upsetting facts from the U.S.'s last war with Iraq...
a) Washington was caught in lies shortly after the war. Remember the teary eyed little Kuwaiti girl that was paraded out at a press conference, and told of how Iraqi soldiers were raping and pillaging, even going into hospitals and purposesly turning over incubators and allowing infants to die on cold hard floors? Absolute nonsense. The child had ties to the Kuwaiti royal family, and was coached to peddle this nonsense for the American public. This is now a fact even recognized in the mainstream (thus you don't have to be a "paranoid nut" like me to acknowledge this.)
b) Iraq was a one time ally of America; an ally of convienience, but nonetheless "friendly." So long as Saddam fought America's proxy war with Iran (receiving American military aid) it was fine. Obviously, Uncle Same didn't care that Saddam was just as much of a human rights ignoring, sadistic dictator back then, as he is now. It just didn't factor into the equation at all. This still goes for many of America's other friends of convienience (who are/were also notorious for quelling forces for human rights and democratic change in their own countires), like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. I'm sure there are more than a few Copts who could tell you just what the Egyptian government is really like.
c) Kuwait was involved in slant drilling on it's shared border with Iraq. One could argue this in itself was actually a provocation. It's known now that Saddam honestly didn't think America would get involved if he used this as a pretext to reclaim what many Iraqi's perceived to be a historical part of their nation (since as in the case of much of the Middle East, the border lines are disputed, having been made by former Occidental occupiers from Europe, prior to their leaving the area.) Obviously, Saddam was wrong.
d) Most conspicuous of all, is just why (even if the whole argument for a war with Iraq were sound) Saddam was left in power after the first "Gulf War"? Indeed, if it was an interest in regime change that America had in mind, why was he not assinated? Or at least why did the war path stop short of Baghdad? I'm of the opinion this is so, because it turned out conditions were not yet right for Washington's ultimate plan to be put in place (and thus why, a decade later, Bush Jr. was looking for any possible reason to start this whole thing up again - in this case, by making a tenuous link between Al-Queda and Iraq...absolute nonsense if one knows anything about Wahabi Jihadism and Baathist Arab Socialism, but one Washington was sure would be lost on the American public, since as far as joe-six-pack is concerned, they're all abunch of "A-Rab raghead fundamentalists.").
There is more that can be said. Suffice it to say, that if "part I" involved so much baloney, why should we suspect any less of "part II" (the decade delayed sequel)?
In the meantime, Americans are having their rights (and the vision of their founding fathers) stolen from them. Want a good scare? Look into the so called "Patriot Act" (misnamed, unless Patriotism involves turning your Bill of Rights into toilet paper.) I'm hoping at least some Orthodox Christians are wary of the new age dawning in America, where police can make people "dissapear" without notice or reason, and where everyone is obliged (perhaps even by force if they're too curious) to simply assume the Golden-god of "the state" always acts in the interest of the common citizen (with no adversarial recourse against abuses of power.)
I'd like to say we're safe up here in Canada; however, for better or worse, our destiny is very much tied into that of the United States.
Seraphim
