|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea.
Posts: 157
|
The Ultimate Conspiracy?
The USA and Britain have never been able to supply good reasons why they're invading Iraq, have they? This is a simple fact. They're groping for reasons; there's no proof that Iraq has WoMD, or at least none that they had while the inspections were going on. Without that, the excuse that Saddam is a "very bad man" and needs getting rid of is, frankly, a bit pants.
So why are they doing this? What other motivation have Britain and the USA got for invading a respectably-defended Middle-Eastern country and taking losses at least in the hundreds in the process? Is there something ulterior going on here?
I think so: North Korea. If the Coalition wanted to get rid of a "very bad man", and are prepared to take significant losses to do so, then Kim what's-his-face would, by logic, be an even more obvious target than Saddam. However, North Korea is so much more militarily potent than Iraq that they cannot do this overtly. North Korea has been very shirty towards South Korea in recent years. A decade or more back they shot down a plane carrying half the South Korean government, killing everyone on board. The N.K. governments are loony fanatics. The crux of the conspiracy is this: The action in the Gulf is intended to demonstrate to North Korea - a much more potent nation than battered and sanctioned Iraq - that the USA is prepared to fight a war and take losses. The North Koreans understand the threat of overwhelming force even less well than Saddam, due to being far more able to defend themselves than that other petty dictator, but it's the only thing they're likely to respond to. Between the end of the Vietnam War and September 11th 2001 were the years of American intolerance of human losses, of the retreat back into isolationism. At the same time, the various rogue nations, most notably North Korea, have started asserting themselves again. If it is demonstrated now that this phase of history is past, that the US is prepared to fight an extended ground campaign and take losses in the process, then the North Koreans would be far more cautious about ever invading South Korea again. This demonstration of American resolve may well prevent a second Korean war, which would be even more catastrophically bloody than the first, with the advance of technology and WoMD, etc.
Therefore, the Iraq war is a hideous gambit which will cost thousands of lives, but which may intimidate the North Koreans enough to stop a war that would kill millions. Not incidentally, it gets rid of Saddam in the process. The ulterior motivation is perhaps more important than the publicly professed one.
Think: This cannot be told to other nations. No one would dream of saying such a thing openly. It would be incredible. If France, Germany and Russia had come on board with Britain and the US regarding Iraq, then they could have been told; with them opposed, however, they can't be informed that this is the underlying motivation, for fear of how they would react. Or perhaps they know, or have guessed: perhaps the whole of the First World is split on a subtle point which they cannot tell the general public - maybe France, Germany and Russia believe that fighting a medium-sized war to prevent a large one ever occurring is an immoral tactic. Probably it's only been said in underground bunkers between Blair and Bush.
Furthermore, and this is the really subtle point: consider all the talk there was beforehand about how quick and painless this war would be? We're thinking now, a week in, of how anyone could have been so stupid to bandy around that dangerous term "bloodless war". I think it was intentional. The US Administration knew that an invasion of Iraq would cost the Coalition hundreds of lives at the least. They claimed that the war would be "bloodless", or nearly so, because that would make it look like they had been caught out and made fools of. If something similar had happened ten years ago - if the US had initiated a conflict which it claimd would be "bloodless", and then suffered significant casualties - they might well have fled for fear of the public reaction back home, and afforded the enemy a "victory". By making it look like they've been caught out and "proved wrong", made to look like naive fools, yet going ahead with it anyway, they are further confirming their resolve to the rest of the world. It is a double-bluff, a subterfuge within a subterfuge, the most subtly far-reaching diplomatic gambit ever made, and it is mightily clever. It may save hundreds of thousands of lives.
The Iraq war is intended to intimidate the North Koreans enough to prevent a second Korean war ever occurring. It is a case of the lesser of two evils. Let us pray they are successful.
Of course this is the perfect conspiracy theory - totally unprovable, open to all kinds of speculation. For this reason I'll welcome any kind of criticism, however total.
This all stands up. Far-reaching secret initiatives have been mounted on this scale before. In 1940, the population of Coventry in England weren't warned that they were about to be bombed by the Germans. If they had been, hundreds of lives would have been saved. However, by stopping a warning ever being sent out, and letting many more people die than would have done had they been forewarned, Churchill further united Britain behind opposing the Nazis. He made it look like the Germans were bloodthirsty mass-murderers who would slaughter millions in their beds if they invaded. If he had not done this, the country might have capitulated and surrendered to Germany, and the whole shape of world history would have been radically different. And, also, consider the subterfuge of the Nixon years: the secret bombing of Cambodia to draw that nation into the Vietnam War and bolster the global fight against communism. It is conceivable that something secret on that scale could be happening again.
I could be completely wrong, of course.
__________________
* CakeGuevara has quit IRC (They keep saying the right person will come along; I think a truck hit mine.)
*morg has never heard of GD
<@morg> sounds like an std to me
<.KraKto5is8> "you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends nose"
Last edited by General Geiger; 28 Mar 2003 at 11:16.
|
Linear Mode
