A brief recap of the Anglo-American "war on terror" in the Middle East, 2001 to date:
Afghanistan was occupied to "eliminate terrorism" but, many thousands of dead later, terror has spread to Pakistan and beyond, leaving Kabul with the most corrupt government on earth.
Iraq was invaded to disarm Saddam of weapons he didn't have. US troops have finally withdrawn, leaving millions dead or displaced and the country broken in dysfunctional sectarian misery.
Libya, far from being the war that went well, was bombed to "protect civilians" with the result that 30.000 died and thousands more remain in prison reportedly being tortured by the regime NATO installed.
An attack against Iran will not stop the regime acquiring nuclear weapons if it wishes to do so. It can only make it more likely that it will decide to acquire them, and will eventually surely succeed.
Along the way thousands more will die, conflict will extend across the region, oil supplies will be disrupted and the Iranian regime will be strengthened domestically.
The central case for attacking Iran is animated by the determination that Washington and its allies have the right to dominate the Middle East come what may.
The pragmatic case against war is overwhelming. But the principled case is even stronger. Britain and the US have launched a series of wars across the Middle East for no better purpose than maintaining their control over a region whose peoples they dare not allow to be self-governing and independent.
if the muslims r not unite then everyone used them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks