"Follow me & I will make you fishers of men" - Jesus My Testimony~Blog~

URL or Email


  • Grace Grace
  • Ann Ong
  • Flicster
  • Yugo Kato
  • Cherie
  • Davinia Da Vine
  • SupaCat
  • Johann Wong
  • Dustin & Haydee
  • Archives
    Notes from THE HAVEN
    Monday, December 15, 2003

    Why the war on Iraq - By Christian Yang

    This obviously is a complex matter stemming back to the first world war and the start of Muslim fundamentalism. But that is another history lesson some other day.

    The political world is about the distribution of power. Power comes in many forms; namely, Force and Asset. The struggle for power in the history of the world has been due to the need for assets or access to assets, for example, the former Soviet union was in Afghanistan because they needed an access to the sea and to oil. The reson China will not let go of tibet is because control of the himalayas are a large advantage point if war is to break out. and so on and so forth. Later on, as seen in the cold war and many others, power was displayed by force by presenting weaponary and technology, the so-called bullies of the world. There are also incidences which appear to be random violence such as the hutus and tutsies, serbia and kossovo, Indonesia and East Timore. But this is due to a case of, "you have what I want, I can have what you have if you are not there". And then religeous wars such as Gaza, Ireland and the likes. I assure you that none of these have to do with God but for reasons of access to power or the display of power.

    In any given situation there is Good and Bad. Therefore in todays political status of nations, there are good ones, bad ones and followers. We could assume the the world assumes that advanced countries such as Australia, New Zeland, France, England, Spain, Italy, Canada etc.. are indeed good. The likes of Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Palestine, Serbia, Indonesia, Pakistan, China and Afghanistan are considered not so good. Then followers are countries who follow larger decision makers because it will reap financial and political benefits.. Japan, Korea, Philippines etc... Any country can become an agressor, a threat, an ally, a follower or an enemy at any given situation or time.

    Then there are the powerful nations which normally boils down to who has the most powerful weaponry. The powerhouses of the past, Russia, USA, Germany, Brittain have long diminished and alliances are now put in place. The political situation is therefore segregated into continents and threats. The middle east is considered one massive powerhouse, USA is still considered one, China - one huge mama to an extent, Russia and North Korea.

    The attack on Iraq was all about weapons of mass destruction not because they were produced, but because of its potential. More importantly, the war on Iraq was about oil and the power by-product that comes from oil.

    Iraq was producing long-range missiles, something the UN scientists did find. We also know that Sadaam was experimenting with bio-chemical weaponry, Anthrax and the likes was found and was cultivated in laboritories across Iraq. Understanding that nuclear science has been around for ages and the techonology is not only easy to produce but arms trade is widely available. It would deem cheaper to purchase a nuclear warhead rather than to produce one, because afterall, there is only need for a single one. Placing two and two together, with the production of long-range missiles and research into biochemical warfare, you have yourself an easy weapon of mass destruction.

    Now the target it not so much the USA directly. The inevitability of that would be the destruction of Iraq and many of its Arab allies. But moreso on Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons. This is for sure. But they have been allowed to keep them because it is the last fortress of non-arab states within the middle east. If it was, say, nuked, or even prestented by the threat of being nuked, then the control over the middle east would therefore fall upon the hands of the arab states, namely the ones engaged in warfare. This would benefit Iraq tremendously and create many friends to engage trade. The power in the middle east then shifts from a scattered and disoriented force to a tighter unit that control, obove all, most of the worlds supply of energy.

    This obviously cannot be allowed because that sort of power would induce serious reprocussions on every nation of the world, therefore affecting economies, effecting power. So why did USa have to "liberate" the country, because it liberates them, along with the rest of the world of threat of oil crises and a undesirable powerhouse, the middle east, who and lets face it.. are not my choice when it comes to nations to reckon with.

    So there you have it, the reasons for war on Iraq or the liberation of Iraq. Unfortunately Monkey Bush is not very good in explinations and is trying to play the hero from the wrong political standpoint. The real statement should have been, "look bub, Iraq has produced long ranged missiles and has also done major research on biochemical weaponry, I don't know about you but I don't like the sound of that and we are taking them out and making sure it wont happen again".

    I look forward to the next president...